Holaday v. KeyBank National Association

Filing 28

ORDER denying without prejudice Parties' 27 Stipulated Motion to Extend Trial Dates and Associated Case Deadlines. The parties are free to file this Motion again with further factual support. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SR)

Case 2:19-cv-01199-RSM Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MARK HOLADAY, an individual,
CASE NO. C19-1199RSM

9
10

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL AND
ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

v.

11
12

KEYBANK N.A., a national banking
association,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

KEYBANK N.A., a national banking
association,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.

18

JASON HOLADAY, an individual,

19

Third-Party Defendant.

20
21

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated Motion to Extend Trial
Dates and Associated Case Deadlines. Dkt. #27. This case was originally filed in 2019 with a

22
23
24
25

trial date of November 9, 2020. Dkt. #18. The Court has twice continued deadlines due to
discovery difficulties from COVID-19. See Dkts. #24 and #26. Trial is currently scheduled for
August 16, 2021. Dkt. #26.

26
27
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL AND ASSOCIATED
DEADLINES – 1

Case 2:19-cv-01199-RSM Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

1
2

The current Motion requests another 120-day extension. The only explanation for the
request is as follows:
Good cause exists to extend the case deadlines because the COVID19 crisis and government-directed social distancing measures have
made discovery difficult. As such, parties are continuing to engage
in discovery and need additional time to complete the discovery
processes.

3
4
5
6

Dkt. #27 at 2.

7
8
9

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Mere failure to complete discovery within the time allowed does not

10

constitute good cause for an extension or continuance.” LCR 16(b)(6). The decision to modify

11

a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth

12

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard

13

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has

14
acted diligently yet still cannot reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the court may allow
15
16

modification of the schedule. Id. However, “if that party was not diligent, the inquiry should

17

end” and the motion to modify should not be granted. Id. Local Civil Rule 16(m) states that

18

“this rule will be strictly enforced” in order to “accomplish effective pretrial procedures and avoid

19

wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.”

20
21

The Court previously granted the parties’ Motions because of the obvious delay to
discovery caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The current Motion does not explain why the

22
parties were unable to accomplish discovery within this additional time. A single sentence saying
23
24

that discovery has been “difficult” does not demonstrate diligence by the parties.

25
26
27
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL AND ASSOCIATED
DEADLINES – 2

Case 2:19-cv-01199-RSM Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3

1

Given all of the above, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that the parties’ third

2

stipulated Motion to Extend Trial Dates and Associated Case Deadlines, Dkt. #27, is DENIED

3

without prejudice. The parties are free to file this Motion again with further factual support.

4

DATED this 17th day of February, 2021.

5
6
7
8
9

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL AND ASSOCIATED
DEADLINES – 3