Saevik v. Swedish Medical Center et al

Filing 45

ORDER: Jury Trial is continued to 1/24/2022 before U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. Discovery now to be completed by 9/26/2021, Dispositive motions now due by 10/26/2021, Attorney settlement conference now to be held by 11/17/2021, 39 .1 mediation now to be completed by 12/24/2021, Motions in Limine now due by 12/31/2021, Agreed pretrial Order and Trial Briefs now due by 1/19/2022. Defendants' motion to continue (Dkt. No. 35 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33 ) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court declines Defendants' request for fees, (see Dkt. No. 37 at 9). Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (LH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 SHANNON ANDERSON SAEVIK, 10 11 12 13 14 v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-1992-JCC ORDER SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER and REBECCA DAY, individually and as Clinic Operations Manager of its Organ Transplant and Live Center, Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) and Defendants’ motion to continue trial and revise the pretrial schedule (Dkt. No. 35.) Having considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, and finding oral argument unnecessary, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue for the reasons described herein. Plaintiff, who alleges that Defendant Swedish Medical Center (“Swedish”) botched a medical procedure performed on her and then unlawfully fired her, brings wrongful discharge and related claims against Swedish and Plaintiff’s superior at Swedish, Rebecca Day. (See Dkt. No. 1-3.) The discovery cut off in this matter is presently set for June 7, 2021, dispositive motions are due July 16, 2021 and trial is scheduled for October 7, 2021. (Dkt. No. 30.) ORDER C19-1992-JCC PAGE - 1 1 Defendants move to continue the discovery period and resulting deadlines. (Dkt. No. 35.) 2 They indicate Plaintiff only recently produced, and/or Defendants only recently received, 3 information necessary to depose Plaintiff. (See Dkt. No. 36.) In addition, the parties have not yet 4 agreed on the scope of the deposition of Swedish’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative. (See Dkt. No. 5 33-3 at 2.) Given the delay in production to date and the outstanding depositions sought by the 6 parties, (see Dkt. Nos. 33 at 3, 35 at 8–9), the Court finds good cause to modify the remaining 7 case management dates, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Case management dates are revised as 8 follows: Case Management Event Revised Due Date 10 Discovery cut off September 26, 2021 11 Dispositive motions October 26, 2021 12 Settlement conference November 17, 2021 13 Rule 39.1 mediation letter of compliance December 24, 2021 14 Motions in limine1 December 31, 2021 15 Proposed jury instructions, verdict form 2 and voir dire January 14, 2022 16 Agreed pretrial order and trial briefs January 19, 2022 17 Trial date 3 January 24, 2022 9 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 // 1 Any objections or responses to the motions in limine must be filed no later than seven days from service of the motion. 2 The Court relies primarily upon the Ninth Circuit Manual for Model Jury Instructions to prepare final instructions for submission to the jury. Two sets of course-of-trial and end-of-trial jury instructions and a verdict form should be submitted. One set should be numbered sequentially, with citations, indicating whether the instruction is agreed or disputed. A second, clean copy without numbering, citations, or indication whether the instruction is agreed or disputed should be submitted. All standard jury instructions should be included. The proposed instructions and the verdict form should also be submitted in word format to the following e-mail address: 3 The pretrial conference, currently set for October 7, 2021, is VACATED. If a conference becomes necessary, the Court will address a date for it at the parties’ request. ORDER C19-1992-JCC PAGE - 2 1 Separately, Plaintiffs move to compel production of Swedish’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. 2 (Dkt. No. 33.) In doing so, Plaintiff includes a meet and confer certification. (Id. at 3, see Dkt. 3 No. 33-2 at 3.) But Plaintiff’s certification is inadequate—a discovery conference occurring more 4 than two months prior is not a good faith attempt to meet and confer to resolve the parties’ 5 differences regarding the present scope of the deposition of Swedish’s Rule 30(b)(6) 6 representative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 37(a)(1). If, following 7 Plaintiff’s good faith attempt to meet and confer, Swedish refuses to provide a representative for 8 a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiff may renew her motion to compel. 9 For the reasons described above, Defendants’ motion to continue (Dkt. No. 35) is 10 GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) is DENIED without prejudice. The 11 Court declines Defendants’ request for fees, (see Dkt. No. 37 at 9), finding that such an award 12 would be unjust in this instance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). 13 14 DATED this 4th day of June 2021. A 15 16 17 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C19-1992-JCC PAGE - 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?