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)
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?