Dahlstrom et al v. State of Washington et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Relief from Deadline to File Amended Response Memorandum signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ROSALBA MAYORGA,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES,

NO. C17-0934RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief from Deadlines to
File Amended Response Memorandum.” Dkt. # 39. This matter was originally scheduled for
trial on September 10, 2018. On August 21, 2018, the Court continued the case management

19

deadlines and extended the date by which dispositive motions had to be filed until September 6,

20

2018. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on that date, and plaintiff timely

21

responded. The response consists of a 36 page memorandum, a 36 page declaration from

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

plaintiff, and 188 pages of exhibits. Dkt. # 35-36.
On October 4, 2018, six days after defendant filed its reply, plaintiff requested permission
to replace her response memorandum with an entirely new, 24-page document. The justifications
given are that (a) plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in a September 2013 accident,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1

1

(b) plaintiff’s counsel had to attend to family matters on September 23rd and 24th, the last two

2

days before the response deadline, and (c) plaintiff’s husband was ill for some unspecified

3

period of time and not available to assist counsel in drafting the original response. Plaintiff’s

4
5

injury, and her employer’s response thereto, gave rise to this litigation. There is no indication

6

that any new or unexpected event related to her condition prevented a response to defendant’s

7

motion within the normal 18-day period. Counsel’s scheduling issues cannot possibly justify a

8

second bite at the response apple. His professional calendar should have been open given the

9
10
11
12

original trial date and the advance notice of when this motion for summary judgment would be
filed. His personal calendar, while less predictable, apparently impacted only the last two days of
the response period. With regards to Mr. Dahlstom’s illness, he says only that he “recently”

13

needed to take medication and missed two week’s of work. Dkt. # 40 at 3-4. It is not clear when

14

Mr. Dahlstrom was ill, how that illness affected his ability to advise his wife, or why his input

15

was necessary given the fact that plaintiff had already submitted a lengthy declaration with the

16
17
18
19

original response.1
The rules of this district regarding noting dates and briefing schedules are clear. In order
to obtain an extension of time after the relevant deadline has passed, plaintiff must satisfy the

20

good cause standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. She has not done so. Plaintiff filed a timely response

21

and has not established good cause for an untimely second submission, especially when the

22

request for an extension of the briefing schedule was filed only after defendant filed its reply

23

memorandum.

24
25
26
27
28

1

If plaintiff is incapable of pursuing this litigation in her own right, plaintiff’s counsel shall
immediately notify the Court of that fact.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from deadline (Dkt. # 39) is
DENIED.

3
4

Dated this 24th day of October, 2018.

A

5

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 3