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)

Download PDF
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a stay of the current trial date pending the completion of criminal 18 proceedings against him in Canada, he has since withdrawn that request.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?