Nguyen v. CenturyLink, Inc.

Filing 46

STIPULATION AND ORDER for Relief from Deadline re parties' 45 Stipulation; RENOTING plaintiff's 41 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Defendants' Affirmative Defenses, and defendants' 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Noting Date 9/21/2018. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9

THUYHONG NGUYEN, and individual,

NO. 2:17-cv-01341-RSL

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

JOINT STIPULATED MOTION
AND ORDER FOR RELIEF FROM
DEADLINE TO SUBMIT
OPPOSITION BRIEFS

CENTURYLINK, INC., a Louisiana
corporation, and QWEST CORPORATION, a
Colorado corporation,

14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The parties to this action, by and through their respective counsel of record, respectfully
request that the Court grant their Joint Stipulated Motion for relief from each parties’ deadline
to respond to the motions of summary judgment. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Partial
Summary Judgment Motion is due Monday, August 27, 2018. See Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #42. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is due the same day. See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.

23
24

JOINT STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR
RELIEF FROM DEADLINE - 1
Cause No.: 2:17-cv-01341-RSL

801 Second Avenue, Suite 1415
Seattle, Washington 98104-1517
[phone] Fax: [phone]

1

#43. The parties request the Court extend the deadline for their opposition briefs to September

2

17, 2018 and the noting date to September 21, 2018.

3

The parties request this extension for the briefing for two reasons. First, the parties are

4

attending a full day mediation in an attempt to resolve these claims in their entirety with

5

Honorable Bruce Hilyer, Ret. on September 13, 2018. This case is more likely to resolve if the

6

parties’ obligations to complete substantial briefing are briefly stayed, with no effect on the

7

other deadlines in the case scheduling order. Second, the Court has not yet ruled on

8

Defendants’ motion for a protective order relating to Plaintiff’s request to depose Defendants

9

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 30(b)(6). Plaintiff believes she cannot present facts essential to

10

justify her opposition without this discovery. See, Fed. R., Civ. Proc. 56(d). Defendant believes

11

that the Court should grant its motion for protective order in its entirety. The parties do not

12

anticipate that if the Court grants this stipulated motion for extension of the time, it would

13

interfere with their ability to comply with other deadlines set by the Court, and accordingly,

14

are not requesting other modification of the scheduling order or briefing schedules on other

15

motions.

16

The Court has the discretion to grant relief from deadlines for the parties’ briefing

17

pursuant to LCR 7(j). The extension would cause the noting date to be continued beyond the

18

date identified in the Court’s scheduling order. See, Dkt. # 16. A scheduling order may be

19

modified for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Rule 16

20

“good cause” requirement primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

21

amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The

22

district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

23

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (internal citation and quote marks omitted).

24

JOINT STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR
RELIEF FROM DEADLINE - 2
Cause No.: 2:17-cv-01341-RSL

801 Second Avenue, Suite 1415
Seattle, Washington 98104-1517
[phone] Fax: [phone]

1

In this case, the parties’ request is consistent with the policies set forth in LCR 39.1 recognizing

2

that the courts strive to assist parties in resolving their disputes in a just, timely, and cost-

3

effective matter. The parties complied with applicable deadlines relating to the outstanding

4

discovery orders, so the request for an extension is also not due to their failure to exercise due

5

diligent.

6

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant their joint stipulated

7

motion to continue the deadlines for filing their opposition briefs to September 17, 2018 and

8

the noting date to September 21, 2018.

9
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
10
DATED August 23, 2018.
11
12

REED LONGYEAR MALNATI & AHRENS, PLLC

13
14
15
16
17

s/Elizabeth A. Hanley ______________
Elizabeth A. Hanley, WSBA # 38233
Reed Longyear Malnati & Ahrens, PLLC
801 Second Ave., Ste. 1415
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff

18
19

KIOVSKY DUWALDT, LLC

20
21
22
23
24

s/Elizabeth I. Kiovsky______________
Elizabeth I. Kiovsky, pro hac vice
Kiovsky Duwaldt, LLC
2820 Welton St.
Denver, CO 80205
Tel. [phone]
JOINT STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR
RELIEF FROM DEADLINE - 3
Cause No.: 2:17-cv-01341-RSL

801 Second Avenue, Suite 1415
Seattle, Washington 98104-1517
[phone] Fax: [phone]

1

Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant

2
3

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. OWENS
4
5

s/Thomas J. Owens______________
Thomas J. Owens, WSBA #23868
Law Offices of Thomas J. Owens
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

DATED: August 24, 2018

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

JOINT STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR
RELIEF FROM DEADLINE - 4
Cause No.: 2:17-cv-01341-RSL

801 Second Avenue, Suite 1415
Seattle, Washington 98104-1517
[phone] Fax: [phone]