CNA Insurance Company Limited v. Expeditors International of Washington Inc et al
Filing
86
ORDER granting Defendant's 83 Motion to Modify Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates and for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion. Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than 9/13/2023. The current trial date and related pretrial deadlines are stricken and will be reset following the Court's ruling on summary judgment. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
Case No. C18-932-RSM
CNA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY ORDER SETTING TRIAL
DATE AND RELATED DATES AND
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE
MOTION
EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF
WASHINGTON, INC. d/b/a EXPEDITORS
INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, and DOE I,
Defendants.
16
17
18
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Expeditors International of
19
Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors’”)’s Motion to Modify Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates
20
and for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion. Dkt. #83. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4),
21
Defendant seeks an order modifying the case schedule to allow Expeditors to bring a motion for
22
23
24
summary judgment seeking dismissal of this action. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion,
arguing that Defendant did not diligently pursue discovery, that Defendant could have and should
25
have filed a timely dispositive motion, and that a modification of the schedule would not serve
26
to promote judicial economy. Dkt. #84. Having reviewed the relevant record and for the reasons
27
stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.
28
ORDER - 1
The Court’s Scheduling Order is meant to be neither flexible nor suggestive. Rather,
1
2
“[t]he parties are bound by the dates specified in the scheduling order,” LCR 16(b)(6), which
3
“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (4);
4
LCR 16(b)(4). This “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party
5
6
7
seeking the amendment,” though the court may also take into account “the existence or degree
of prejudice to the party opposing the modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975
8
F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). Mere “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence.”
9
Id.
10
11
12
In considering whether a continuance is proper, courts look to: (1) the moving party’s
diligence in its efforts to ready its defense prior to the date beyond which a continuance is sought;
13
(2) whether the continuance would have served a useful purpose if granted; (3) the extent to
14
which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court, opposing parties, and
15
witnesses; and (4) the amount of prejudice suffered by the moving party due to the denial of the
16
continuance. Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 556 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted).
17
18
19
“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
20
Here, the Court finds good cause for modifying the Court’s Scheduling Order and that
21
Defendant has satisfied the applicable standard for a continuance. As to the first factor,
22
23
24
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s delay in disclosing witnesses Hong and Truong and the later
exclusions of said witnesses by the Court resulted in Defendant’s inability to move for summary
25
judgment. Dkt. #83 at 4–5. In response, Plaintiff argues that its Rule 26 Disclosures and certain
26
discovery responses served in June 2019 identified “Representatives of Golden Star Co., Ltd.,”
27
a third-party company. Dkt. #84 at 2–3. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff brought
28
ORDER - 2
1
this case, Plaintiff has the burden to establish a prima facie case, and therefore Plaintiff has the
2
burden to compel third-party testimony.
3
unavailing. As for any attempt to relitigate whether witnesses Hong and Truong should have
4
been excluded—that issue is settled, and any related arguments are also unavailing. The Court
5
6
7
The Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s response
directs Plaintiffs to its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. See Dkt. #79.
As to the last three factors, the Court finds that briefing as to whether Plaintiffs can establish a
8
prima facie case under the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. §30701 et seq
9
(“COGSA”) given the exclusion of witnesses Hong and Truong will promote judicial economy.
10
11
12
The Court finds that summary judgment briefing will at least clarify the issues for trial if
Defendant’s motion is denied, if not avoid a trial altogether if Defendant’s motion is granted.
13
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
14
1) Defendant’s Motion to Modify Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates and for
15
16
Leave to File a Dispositive Motion (Dkt. #83) is GRANTED.
2) Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than September 13,
17
18
19
20
2023.
3) The current trial date and related pretrial deadlines are stricken and will be reset
following the Court’s ruling on summary judgment.
21
22
23
DATED this 15th day of August, 2023.
24
25
A
26
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
ORDER - 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?