Suta v. The Home Depot Inc

Filing 47

ORDER. Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 35 Motion to Amend the Case Schedule is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

VAHID SUTA,
CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00744-RSL

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,

12

ORDER

Defendant.

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

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Rule 6(b)(1)(B) Motion to
Amend Case Schedule” (Dkt. # 35) and a motion to seal documents submitted in support
thereof (Dkt. # 34). The motion to seal is GRANTED. The information contained in the
sealed documents has nothing to do with the claims or defenses at issue in this litigation,
nor does it justify the requested extension of the case management deadlines. As such, the
public has little interest in the information and its dissemination could be used to annoy,
harass, or embarrass non-parties.
With regards to the request for an extension of the case management deadlines,
plaintiff has not shown that the failure to make expert disclosures and complete discovery
was the result of excusable neglect. Plaintiff acknowledges that his former counsel was
negligent, but argues that evaluating his conduct against the so-called Dix factors leads to
the conclusion that the neglect should be excused. To the contrary, the majority of the

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

factors set forth in In re Dix, 95 B.R. 134, 138 (9th Cir. 1982), weigh against a finding of
excusable neglect. Granting the requested relief will force defendant, which has already
completed discovery and filed a motion for summary judgment based on the existing
record, to incur additional, unjustified costs to redo those tasks. The delay in disclosing
experts and completing discovery is significant enough to upend the trial schedule
established by the Court: it is not possible to introduce new expert testimony at this point
without reopening discovery, extending the dispositive motion deadline, and continuing
the trial date. Plaintiff admits that he has no explanation for his former attorney’s failure to
meet the case management deadlines and has not shown that his former attorney was in
any way prevented from performing in a timely manner or was acting in good faith. 1 Thus,
the first four Dix factors suggest that the neglect was not, in this case, excusable.
The fifth Dix factor requires an evaluation of whether it would be fair to penalize
the client for his counsel’s mistake or neglect. Plaintiff relies heavily on this factor,
arguing that he had no way of knowing his former counsel was failing to meet case
management deadlines, that he acted in good faith throughout, that his replacement counsel
acted swiftly to salvage the situation, and that imputing prior counsel’s neglect to plaintiff
would be unfair. The fifth Dix factor was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in
Pioneer Investment Services, however. 507 U.S. at 396-97. Whether the client, separate
and apart from his counsel, acted reasonably and in good faith in monitoring or relying on
the conduct of his attorney is not the issue. Clients are bound by the acts and omissions of
their voluntarily chosen representatives, and they may not disavow the conduct of those
representatives in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. Id. at 397. “Any other
notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation . . . .” Id.

24
25
26

1
In fact, the evidence shows that support staff repeatedly reminded plaintiff’s prior counsel of the upcoming
deadline for submission of expert reports, but counsel insisted – incorrectly – that all he had to do by July 12, 2023,
was disclose the identity of the expert. Dkt. # 37 at 8-9. “[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing
the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable neglect’ . . . . Pioneer Inv. Servs., 507 U.S. at 392.

ORDER - 2

1
2
3

(quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962)). Having failed to show that
his former counsel’s neglect was excusable, plaintiff is not entitled to an extension of the
case management deadlines.

4
5
6

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 34) is GRANTED
and his motion to amend the case schedule (Dkt. # 35) is DENIED.

7
8

Dated this 13th day of November, 2023.

9
10

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3