Harris v. Skanska USA Building Inc. et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying Plaintiff's #53 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:22-cv-00555-RSM Document 58 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

QUINTE HARRIS, an individual,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. C22-555RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

v.
SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC.,
SKANSKA BALFOUR BEATTY JV,
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and
BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION
LLC, corporations,

14
15
16

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Quinte Harris’s Motion to Extend

17
18

Discovery Deadline, Dkt. #53. This case was filed on April 25, 2022. Discovery closed on

19

September 18, 2023. The Court granted a stipulated Motion permitting the deposition of

20

Plaintiff to occur on November 10, 2023, and extending the trial date accordingly. Dkt. #55.

21

The instant Motion, seeking to extend the deadline for other discovery to be requested and

22
23
24

produced, is opposed. Trial is set for March 18, 2024.
Plaintiff moves for a two-month extension of discovery. The reason for this request is,

25

“[d]ue to undersigned counsel’s emergent commitments in other cases for the last four months,

26

Plaintiff has not yet completed the discovery process.” Dkt. #53 at 1. The Motion later states:

27
28

Based on undersigned counsel’s calendar and commitment to other
cases, additional time for discovery is necessary to prosecute this

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 1

Case 2:22-cv-00555-RSM Document 58 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4

case effectively. The parties have already sought an extension of
all other major deadlines. Plaintiff is seeking only an extension of
an existing deadline commensurate with the other requested
extensions.
Id. at 2. No further explanation is given. There is no attached declaration with further details.

5

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

6

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the

7
8
9

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 the

10

party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has acted diligently yet still cannot reasonably

11

meet the scheduling deadlines, the court may allow modification of the schedule. Id. “Mere

12

failure to complete discovery within the time allowed does not constitute good cause for an

13

extension or continuance.” LCR 16(b)(6). This rule will be “strictly enforced” in order to

14
15

“accomplish effective pretrial procedures and avoid wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and

16

the court.” LCR 16(m). While prejudice to an opposing party may provide additional reasons

17

for denying the motion, it is not required under Rule 16(b). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232

18

F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating good cause to modify the scheduling order

20
21

and has failed to do so. He makes no mention of diligence in his Motion. This appears to the

22

Court as the classic situation of “mere failure to complete discovery within the time allowed,”

23

which the Court has routinely ruled insufficient to grant the requested relief. Unless Plaintiff

24

can point to some further basis for modifying the scheduling order, discovery will remain

25
26
27

closed except as to allow the deposition of Plaintiff, rescheduled for good cause based on the
prior stipulated Motion of the parties.

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 2

Case 2:22-cv-00555-RSM Document 58 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 3

1

The Court declines to award fees under Rule 11 as requested by Defendants. See Dkt.

2

#56 at 6–7. Although Plaintiff’s Motion fails to demonstrate diligence, it does point to the

3

stipulated extension of the trial date as a non-frivolous basis for extending discovery.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Having reviewed the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds
and ORDERS that Plaintiff Quinte Harris’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline, Dkt. #53, is
DENIED.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2023.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE - 3