Boule v. Egbert et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 80 Motion to Extend Discovery and Trial Dates, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6

ROBERT BOULE,

7
8

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF
DISCOVERY DEADLINE

v.

9
10

ERIK EGBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Case No. C17-0106RSM

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery and

13
14

Trial Dates. Dkt. #80. Plaintiff seeks a limited extension of the discovery deadline until July 31,

15

2018, to serve a subpoena on Border Patrol for records related to Supervisory Border Patrol

16

Officer Kenneth Anderson, and for deposing five witnesses, including Defendant Egbert. Id.

17

Although Plaintiff also sought a stay of the current trial date pending the completion of criminal

18

proceedings against him in Canada, he has since withdrawn that request. Dkts. #80 at 5-14 and

19
20

#86 at 2, fn. 1. He seeks extensions of no other deadlines. Accordingly, this Order addresses

21

only the request for extension of the discovery deadline. Defendant Egbert opposes the motion

22

to reopen discovery, arguing that Plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking such discovery. Dkt.

23

#84. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court now DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

24

This matter was filed on January 25, 2017. Dkt. #1. The Court issued the Order Setting
25
26

Trial Date and Related Dates on July 21, 2017, setting the discovery deadline for March 26, 2018.

27

Dkt. #18. Following a motion by Defendant Egbert, the Court subsequently granted a limited

28

extension of the discovery deadline as follows:
ORDER
PAGE - 1

For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion, the Court finds good cause
for an extension of the discovery deadline for certain areas of discovery.
Accordingly, Defendant may resume the deposition of Plaintiff, depose
Agents Andersen and Olson, and subpoena certain records from the United
States no later than April 23, 2018. Although Plaintiff does not object to an
extension of the discovery deadline, he does object to the scope and proposed
extension. Dkt. #56. However, Plaintiff has failed to propound his own
motion, and fails to show good cause for an extension of all discovery.
Therefore, for all discovery other than that identified by this Court above,
the discovery deadline of March 26, 2018, applies.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Dkt. #59 at 2 (emphasis in original).1 Just over two months later, Plaintiff filed the instant

8

motion. Dkt. #80.
9
10

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 16(b), the Court may extend a

11

deadline for good cause. However, if a motion for an extension is made after a deadline, the

12

Court may not extend time absent a showing of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

13

In March, the Court informed Plaintiff that he could make a motion to extend the discovery

14

deadline under the Rule 16 standard. Dkt. #59 at 2. Plaintiff chose not to do so. Instead, he
15
16

waited until two months after the discovery deadline had passed, and after another motion for

17

extension of the discovery deadline had been made by Defendant, to bring the instant motion.

18

Therefore, the excusable neglect standard applies.

19

Plaintiff has failed to show excusable neglect. As Defendant notes, Plaintiff was aware

20
21

of the identity of the witnesses he now wishes to depose prior to filing the lawsuit, and identified

22

them in his own Initial Disclosures. Dkts. #84 at 5-6 and #85, Ex. A. Moreover, Plaintiff did

23

not submit Touhy requests for the wtinesses’ testimony until early May, after discovery closed.

24

Dkt. #84 at 6. Plaintiff also fails to explain how the documents he received on March 30 are

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant Egbert also filed a subsequent motion to compel the continued depositions of
Plaintiff and Agent Olson, which was granted. Dkt. #77. That motion also resulted in a new trial
date of October 1, 2018, and new dispositive motion deadline of July 5, 2018. Dkt. #79.
ORDER
PAGE - 2

1
2

relevant to the depositions and subpoena he seeks now, and why he could not have scheduled
depositions prior to the discovery deadline without that information.2 See Dkt. #81 at ¶ 8.

3

Accordingly, having reviewed the motions, the responses thereto and replies in support

4

thereof, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that

5

Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery and Trial Dates (Dkt. #80) is DENIED.
6

DATED this 11 day of June 2018.

7
8

A

9

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

Plaintiff asserts that he did could not ascertain all of the matters to be asked in depositions until
he received the Internal Affairs Report of Investigation. Dkt. #81 at ¶ 10. However, this does
not explain why he could not have moved for an extension of discovery prior to the expiration of
the discovery deadline, particularly when he had document requests outstanding.

ORDER
PAGE - 3