The Hanover Insurance Company v Hurdelbrink Law Office

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Discovery deadline extended to January 31, 2019. (KERR)

Judge Robert S. Lasnik

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

10

Plaintiff,

11

14

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE

v.

12
13

No. 2:18-cv-00651- RSL

HURDELBRINK LAW OFFICE, INC.,
MARK E. HURDELBRINK and
CHRISTOPHER WILCOX,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

18

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Plaintiff Hanover Insurance

19

Company and Defendants Hurdelbrink Law Office, Inc. and Mark E. Hurdelbrink (collectively

20

“Defendants Hurdelbrink”) jointly request an order continuing the deadline to complete

21

discovery to January 31, 2019.

22

depositions and finish production of documents requested pursuant to written discovery. This

23

joint request to move the discovery cutoff date of January 7, 20191 to January 31, 2019

24

encompasses less than a month change and would not affect any other deadline as set in the

25

Court’s Minute Order. Dkt. 15 at p. 1.

This continuance would allow the parties to complete

26
27

1

The current deadline January 6, 2019 falls on a Sunday, and per the minute order (dkt. 15 at 2)
the deadline then falls on the following Monday—January 7, 2019.
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.436.2020

The parties have diligently engaged in discovery, worked cooperatively, and have not

1

previously requested a continuance or modification of any of this Court’s orders.2

2

II.

3

BACKGROUND

4

This is a declaratory action seeking to determine whether Plaintiff has a duty to defend or

5

indemnify Defendants Hurdelbrink related to claims arising from Defendants Hurdelbrink’s

6

representation of Christopher Wilcox (“Wilcox”) in a now resolved divorce proceeding in

7

Thurston County Superior Court. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiff asserts that conditions precedent for

8

coverage under the insuring agreement of the applicable policy were not satisfied and that

9

Defendants engaged in conduct during the renewal of his policy barring coverage. Id. at ¶¶ 48-

10

59. Defendants Hurdelbrink deny Plaintiff’s allegations and, by way of counterclaims, assert

11

extracontractual claims for breach of the duty of good faith, attorney’s fees for the litigation,

12

and reserves the right to pursue an Insurance Fair Conduct Act violation claim. Dkt. 12 at ¶¶ 27-

13

37. Plaintiff denies Defendants Hurdelbrink’s counterclaims. Dkt. 13.

14

Since the Court’s entry of the Minute Order Setting Trial Date & Related Dates, the

15

parties have exchanged initial disclosures and written discovery requests have been propounded

16

and partial responded. Namely, Plaintiff has propounded requests for production of certain

17

documents for which Defendants Hurdelbrink are still gathering responsive documents. To

18

date, both parties have work amicably, and with flexibility, to attempt to be diligent in discovery

19

both formal and informal.

20

productions will be concluded before the proposed January 31, 2019 deadline.

It is believed by both parties that these outstanding record

21

In addition, the Parties have limited depositions that will occur in the first week of

22

January ahead of the discovery cut off, including Defendant Hurdelbrink’s deposition and the

23

deposition of an employee of Hurdelbrink Law. Plaintiff, to date, has waited to note the

24

Defendants Hurdelbrink’s deposition in order to have complete records previously requested

25

through written discovery.

26
27

2

However, the Parties did initially request a discovery deadline of March 1, 2019 in their Joint
Status Report and Discovery Plan. Dkt. 14 at 5. This motion asks for a date more than a month
before that requested date.
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 2

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.436.2020

1

Additionally, Defendants Hurdlebrink attempted though informal requests, or relayed to

2

Plaintiff’s counsel they would attempt, to obtain non-privileged files and records from non-party

3

third party entities including Ms. Wilcox’s attorneys in the divorce proceedings: Barbara Jo

4

Sylvester, Chris Maharry, and Paul Firuz. Unfortunately, to date those records have not been

5

obtained. Plaintiff has issued subpoenas to these individuals for the records. Following receipt

6

of the records, should additional information be necessary, Plaintiff (or Defendants

7

Hurdelbrink) may wish to depose these individuals. To ensure dates suitable for the non-parties

8

can be obtained after obtaining the records pursuant to the subpoenas, the parties seek this

9

continuance. Again, both parties believe these depositions can be completed ahead of January

10
11
12

31, 2019, should be they be needed.
The parties have not previously requested a continuation of deadlines or an amendment to
the court’s orders.

13

III.

ISSUE PRESENTED

14

Whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), the Court should amend the

15

Minute Order (dkt. 15) to continue the discovery cutoff date for less than a month so that the

16

parties can attempt to obtain additional written and oral discovery without resorting to motions

17

practice to compel the same and to obtain documents through formal means when informal

18

requests failed.

19

IV.

ANALYSIS

20

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified for

21

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause for purposes of

22

Rule 16 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the pre-trial scheduling order.

23

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause

24

means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the parties’ diligence. Id. at 609. Here, the

25

parties have engaged in active and diligent discovery. Most notably, the parties have worked

26

diligently together, without Court intervention, related to obtaining overdue documents pursuant

27

to written discovery. In order to save the Court’s resources and avoid an unnecessary motion to
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 3

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.436.2020

1

compel these documents not yet produced, the parties seek a short continuance to attempt to

2

resolve the outstanding record production, as well as obtain documents from third-parties that

3

they hoped would have been obtainable through informal means. Importantly, upon receipt of

4

the third-party records it may be that no additional discovery is necessary, but the parties wish

5

to extend the deadline so as to set depositions for the parties subject to the third party subpoenas

6

should they be necessary.

7
8

The proposed continuance would not impact any other date set in the minute order and
specifically would not effect the trial date or the dispositive motion deadline.

9
10
11
12

V.

CONCLUSION

This requested continuance is reflective of the interest of conserving litigation and
judicial resources. A proposed Stipulated Order is provided for the Court’s consideration.
DATED: December 20, 2018

13
By: s/Sarah D. Macklin

14

Sarah D. Macklin, WSBA #49624
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP
1111 3rd Ave., Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 4

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.436.2020

By: s/George J. Manos
By: s/Darcy L. Ibach

1
2

George J. Manos, IL Bar #6193694
Darcy L. Ibach, IL Bar #6193101
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP
500 W. Adams St., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

By: s/Patrick H. LePley

12

Patrick H. LePlay, WSBA #7071
LePley Law Firm
12600 SE 36th Street, Suite 201
Bellevue, WA 98006
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants Mark
Hurdelbrink and Hurdelbrink Law
Office

13
14
15
16
17
18
ORDER

19
20
21
22

Based on the Stipulated Motion filed by the Parties, it is hereby ORDERED, for good
cause shown, that the discovery cutoff be continued to January 31, 2019.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2018.

23

A S. Lasnik
The Honorable Robert

24
25
26
27
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 5

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.436.2020