Advanced Hair Restoration, LLC v. Hair Restoration Centers, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER declining to enter the parties' 30 Stipulated Motion for Entry and Modification of Case Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

ADVANCED HAIR RESTORATION, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. C17-709RSM
ORDER DECLINING TO ENTER
STIPULATION

v.
HAIR RESTORATION CENTERS, LLC,

14
Defendant.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry and

17

Modification of Case Scheduling Order. Dkt. #30. The parties submit that good cause exists

18

for a two-month extension of pretrial deadlines because they “have been pursuing discovery but

19
20
21

remain in the middle of a discovery dispute that has persisted since October 2017,” because
they have “attempted to engage in settlement negotiations,” and because “it is not realistic for

22

the parties to complete discovery, resolve their disputes, and prepare for trial under the existing

23

case schedule.” Id.

24

Current deadlines in this case are as follows:

25

Deadline for filing motions related to discovery March 30, 2018
Discovery completed by
April 30, 2018
Jury Trial Date
August 27, 2018

26
27
28

Dkt. #13.

ORDER DECLINING TO ENTER STIPULATION - 1

1
2
3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states that a schedule may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge’s consent. This Court’s Local Rules state:
The parties are bound by the dates specified in the scheduling
order. A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent. Mere failure to complete discovery within the
time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or
continuance.

4
5
6
7
8
9

LCR 16(b)(5).
The Court has reviewed this Stipulation and the remainder of the record, and finds the

10

parties have failed to set forth a good cause basis for modifying the Scheduling Order as

11

required under Rule 16(b)(4). The existing discovery deadline is two months away. The

12

parties have failed to present sufficient evidence to convince the Court that the discovery issues

13

in this case, either in collecting discovery or resolving disputes related to discovery, cannot be

14
15

resolved within that time frame. Even if the parties could present such evidence, it would not

16

satisfy Local Rule 16. The parties have not adequately informed the Court of significant

17

scheduling issues not related to discovery. Attempting to engage in settlement negotiations is

18

expected of parties and does not alone constitute good cause to modify a schedule.

19

Given all of the above, the Court DECLINES to enter the parties’ Stipulation, Dkt. #30.

20
21
22
23

The Court urges the parties to attempt to resolve their discovery issues within the existing
deadlines.
DATED this 28 day of February, 2018.

24
25
26
27

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER DECLINING TO ENTER STIPULATION - 2