Ferguson v. Waid
Filing
107
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 98 Motion to Reset Discovery Completion Date. 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
11
12
13
14
15
SANDRA L. FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. C17-1685RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESET
DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE
v.
BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID
MARITAL COMMUNITY,
Defendants.
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sandra Ferguson’s Motion to Reset
17
Discovery Completion Date. Dkt. #98. The current discovery completion date is today, July
18
16, 2018. Dkt. #55. The deadline for filing “motions related to discovery” passed on June 18,
19
20
2018. Id. Trial remains set for November 13, 2018. Id.
21
Ms. Ferguson now requests a two-week extension of the discovery completion date.
22
Dkt. #98. She explains that she retained counsel on June 28, 2018, who began communicating
23
with Defendant on July 2, 2018, about taking his deposition and the depositions of two others.
24
25
Id. These depositions have been delayed. Ms. Ferguson requests this extension of the deadline
26
to assist the parties in resolving any “scheduling issues” or “discovery-related disputes that
27
might arise.” Id. at 2. She argues that this relief would not prejudice Defendant. She presents
28
no other reasons for the extension.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESET DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE - 1
1
In Response, Defendant Waid argues that this Motion is brought without good cause
2
and more than three weeks after the deadline for filing motions related to discovery. Dkt. #99.
3
Mr. Waid states: “[p]rior to July 2, 2018—which is only two weeks before the discovery cut-
4
off on July 16—Plaintiff never served any discovery requests on Defendant or notified Defense
5
6
counsel of any intent to take depositions.” Id. at 3. Mr. Waid argues that Ms. Ferguson has not
7
been diligent in deposing the non-party witnesses, first scheduling them and then cancelling
8
them, and generally failing to adequately communicate with Mr. Waid. Id. Mr. Waid requests
9
attorney fees related to the failure of Ms. Ferguson’s counsel to show up for the deposition of
10
11
Kany Levine. Id. at 12–13.
12
On Reply, Ms. Ferguson argues that her counsel attempted to notify defense counsel
13
that the deposition of Mr. Levine was not going forward. Dkt. #102. Both parties present
14
significant email communications to the Court to support their version of what happened.
15
16
17
The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district
court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). For good
18
cause shown, the Court may grant a request to modify or enlarge the deadlines in a Case
19
Scheduling Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Mere failure to complete discovery within the
20
time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or continuance.” LCR 16(b)(5).
21
The Court is not interested in every detail of the back and forth communications
22
23
between counsel trying to schedule these last-minute depositions. The Court finds as an initial
24
matter that the instant Motion is related to discovery and arrives well after the deadline for such
25
motions.
26
demonstrate good cause to modify the Scheduling Order.
27
28
See Dkt. #55.
Furthermore, the Court finds that Ms. Ferguson has failed to
She failed to pursue these
depositions until the last two weeks before the discovery cut-off; this shows a lack of diligence
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESET DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE - 2
1
and disregard for Mr. Waid’s ability and the ability of the other deponents to schedule and
2
prepare for those depositions.
3
opposing parties agree to short extensions of time, Mr. Waid’s refusal given the circumstances
4
Although it may be Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience that
does not appear unreasonable. In any event, Ms. Ferguson presents no reason for this extension
5
6
other than her failure to complete discovery within the time allowed, and by local rule this does
7
not demonstrate good cause. Given all of the above, this Motion will be denied. The Court
8
finds that Mr. Waid’s request for attorney fees under Rule 30(g) is not warranted given the
9
particular facts of this case.
10
11
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
12
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Sandra
13
Ferguson’s Motion to Reset Discovery Completion Date, Dkt. #98, is DENIED.
14
DATED this 16th day of July, 2018.
15
16
17
18
19
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESET DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE - 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?