Dunn v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Parties' Second Stipulated Motion to Amend the Case Schedule. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

BRENDAN DUNN,

10

CASE NO. C18-0257JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

12
CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff Brendan Dunn’s motion for reconsideration of the

16

court’s order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ second stipulated motion to

17

amend the case schedule. (MFR (Dkt. # 35); see also Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 30); 7/19/19

18

Order (Dkt. # 31).) Pursuant to the Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), “[m]otions for

19

reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny such motions” unless

20

there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal

21

authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

22

//

ORDER - 1

1

diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Because Mr. Dunn fails to make

2

either showing, the court DENIES his motion for reconsideration.

3

This action was filed on February 19, 2018, almost 18 months ago. (See Compl.

4

(Dkt. # 1).) Multiple extensions of pretrial deadlines have been granted. (See 5/18/18

5

Order (Dkt. # 9); 6/4/18 Order (Dkt. # 13); 12/18/18 Order (Dkt. # 23); 5/28/19 Order

6

(Dkt. # 26).) In the most recent motion for extensions, the parties asked the court to

7

extend the deadlines for Defendant City of Seattle’s (“the City”) expert testimony

8

disclosure, motions related to discovery, discovery completion, dispositive motions, and

9

the date by which to hold a settlement conference. (See Stip. Mot. at 2.) The court

10

adjusted the City’s expert testimony deadline and the discovery motions deadline.

11

(7/19/19 Order at 1-2.) The remaining deadlines were not adjusted as they are essential

12

to preserving the December 2, 2019, trial date. (See Sched. Order. (Dkt. # 20) at 1.)

13

To further explain: the court issues scheduling orders to provide a reasonable

14

timeline for the resolution of disputes. The court generally sets the discovery cut-off 30

15

days prior to the deadline for filing dispositive motions to ensure that the court has a

16

complete record when considering a motion that could resolve the case. In addition, the

17

schedule generally provides 90 days between the deadline for filing dispositive motions

18

and the trial date. This 90-day period takes into account: (a) an approximate 30-day lag

19

between the date a party files a motion and the date that motion becomes ripe for the

20

court’s consideration, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3); and (b) an additional 30

21

days during which the court endeavors to rule on the motion, id. LCR 7(b)(5). Anything

22

short of a 90-day period leaves inadequate time for the parties to consider the court’s

ORDER - 2

1

ruling and plan for trial or an alternate resolution. In the event parties are unable to meet

2

these deadlines, any request to continue a trial typically results in a trial being

3

rescheduled at the end of the court’s current trial calendar. The parties’ proposed

4

deadline extensions, other than the ones the court granted, contravene these rules. (See

5

Stip. Mot. at 2.)

6

From other cases that Mr. Dunn’s counsel has filed, the court is familiar with

7

counsel’s (and his family’s) multi-year medical issues that he relates and expounds upon

8

in the motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Young v. Pena, No. C18-1007JLR (W.D.

9

Wash.); (see generally MFR.) Although counsel describes new medical problems that

10

arose starting June 26, 2019 (see MFR at 2), it is clear from the prior motions that the

11

parties required an extension due to significant outstanding discovery (see Valera Decl.

12

(Dkt. # 27-1) ¶ 3, Ex. B). For example, on June 22, 2019, counsel for the City reached

13

out to Mr. Dunn’s counsel to schedule Mr. Dunn’s deposition and noted the upcoming

14

August 5, 2019, discovery deadline. (See id. at 3.) In response, on June 24, 2019, Mr.

15

Dunn’s counsel said that Mr. Dunn would not be available “until late August” and

16

requested “a 60 day extension of the discovery cut-off.” (Id. at 2.) All of this occurred

17

before counsel’s new medical problems that he cites as the basis for requiring the

18

extensions. As the court noted in its August 8, 2018, case schedule, “failure to complete

19

discovery within the time allowed is not recognized” as a basis for extending case

20

deadlines. (Sched. Order. at 2.)

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 3

1

The court is not being mean-spirited, unsympathetic, or arbitrary in denying the

2

motion. Rather, the court expects all counsel to diligently represent their clients by

3

preparing cases for trial or arranging other representation.

4
5
6

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Dunn’s motion for
reconsideration.
Dated this 31st day of July, 2019.

7
8

A

9

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4