Cosmos Granite (West) LLC v. Minagrex Corporation

Filing 169

ORDER denying Defendant's 114 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Download PDF
Case 2:19-cv-01697-RSM Document 169 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 3   1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 COSMOS GRANITE (WEST), LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff, Case No. C19-1697RSM ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME v. MINAGREX CORPORATION, d/b/a MGX Stone, 14 15 Defendant. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Minagrex Corporation’s Motion for 17 Extension of Time. Dkt. #114. Minagrex moves “for a sixty-to-ninety-day extension of the 18 current scheduling order,” including the trial date and dispositive motion deadline. Id. at 1. 19 20 21 This Motion was filed on August 5, 2021, thirteen days before the dispositive motion deadline. See Dkt. #83. Both parties filed dispositive motions on the deadline. See Dkt. #130 and #137. 22 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 23 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the 24 25 26 broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of 27 the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has acted diligently yet still cannot 28 reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the court may allow modification of the schedule. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 1 Case 2:19-cv-01697-RSM Document 169 Filed 10/06/21 Page 2 of 3   1 Id. However, “if that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end” and the motion to modify 2 should not be granted. Id. Local Civil Rule 16(m) states that “this rule will be strictly 3 enforced” in order to “accomplish effective pretrial procedures and avoid wasting the time of 4 the parties, counsel, and the court.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 As an initial matter, this Motion was not filed far enough in advance of the dispositive motion deadline to allow the Court reasonable time to review and issue a ruling. Now that the parties have filed dispositive motions, the requested relief is possibly moot. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the substantive arguments. Minagrex claims it was blindsided late in discovery with a supplemental expert report seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional damages. It is Cosmos West’s opinion that this damages 13 calculation was based on Defendants’ own sales records, should not have been a surprise, and 14 in any event was consistent with its prior claims. See Dkt. #117 at 7. The Court agrees with 15 Cosmos West that the supplemental disclosure requires no new discovery and that the numbers 16 should not have been a surprise. To the extent Minagrex disagrees with Cosmos West’s ability 17 18 to pursue one type of damages over another, it is free to make those arguments within the 19 existing schedule of this case. In any event, the Court finds Minagrex has failed to demonstrate 20 diligence because it received the supplemental expert report on July 16, 2021, but waited over 21 two weeks to file the instant Motion. Minagrex has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate 22 23 24 good cause to modify the Court’s scheduling Order. Given all of the above, and having reviewed the relevant briefing, attached declarations, 25 and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Minagrex 26 Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #114, is DENIED. 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2 Case 2:19-cv-01697-RSM Document 169 Filed 10/06/21 Page 3 of 3   1 DATED this 6th day of October, 2021 2 3 4 5 6 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 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?