Singleton v. Intellisist, Inc

Filing 46

ORDER re: defendant's 37 Motion to Extend Deadline and for Protective Order Staying Deadline for Discovery Responses. Defendant directed to serve its discovery responses within seven days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE _______________________________________ ) KURT SINGLETON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) INTELLISIST, INC., d/b/a Spoken ) Communications, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. C17-1712RSL ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Extend Deadlines and for Protective Order Staying Deadline for Discovery Responses.” Dkt. # 37. Plaintiff served his first set of discovery requests on March 13, 2018. Four days earlier, third-party Avaya, Inc., had acquired defendant Spoken Communications: defendant is now a subsidiary of Avaya. Defendant requested, and was granted, three extensions of the time in which to respond to plaintiff’s written discovery. On June 15, 2018, the day its responses were due, defendant filed this motion, arguing that it could not timely respond because (a) employees with knowledge of the relevant events had left the company after Avaya acquired defendant and (b) Avaya’s efforts at integrating defendant’s email and document management systems and its migration to a new email platform has complicated document searches and recovery. Defendant requests an additional thirty days from the date the Court rules on this motion in which to serve discovery responses and a three ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 1 2 month continuance of all other case management deadlines. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), when a party is required to act within a specified time, 3 the deadline may be extended for good cause. Likewise, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that 4 case management deadlines established by the Court “may be modified only for good cause and 5 with the judge’s consent.” The case management order in this case likewise states “[t]hese are 6 firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the 7 parties. The Court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown . . . .” Dkt. # 28 at 2. 8 As defendant acknowledges, the “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence 9 of the party seeking an extension. Dkt. # 37 at 5; Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 10 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (where plaintiff failed to “demonstrate diligence in complying with the 11 dates set by the district court,” good cause was not shown); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 12 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant essentially argues that, because it has a new 13 parent company and the new owner has made personnel and systems changes, it should be 14 excused from having to respond to discovery or otherwise litigate this case in a timely manner. 15 Defendant makes virtually no effort to show that it has been diligent in its efforts to gather the 16 information requested by plaintiff in March. In fact, it appears that defendant opted to do nothing 17 - no employee interviews, no document searches, no privilege reviews - until the Court ruled on 18 a pending motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not, however, stay discovery or alter 19 case management deadlines. More troubling is the fact that the whole time defendant sat on its 20 hands, it was aware that its personnel were dispersing and that its new parent company was 21 making changes that adversely impacted its ability to access files and documents. Defendant has 22 not shown that it has been diligent or established good cause for an extension of time in which to 23 respond to discovery or an extension of the case management deadlines. 24 By filing this motion on the day on which its discovery responses were due, defendant has 25 given itself an extra six weeks in which to respond. Defendant did not request a specific 26 extension of time, and the Court assumes it has been diligently gathering responsive documents ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -2- 1 and information since it filed this motion. Defendant shall, therefore, serve its discovery 2 responses within seven days of the date of this Order. 3 4 DATED this 1st day of August, 2018. 5 6 A 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -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?