Florer v. Schrum et al

Filing 97

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion 92 shall be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is Denied as to his request to send additional interrogatories to defendant Schrum; the motion is Granted as to Plaintif f's request to sent interrogatories to Defendant Jackson. The pretrial deadlines in this case are re-set as follows: Discovery (limited to Defendant Jackson) shall be completed by 8/17/2012; Dispositive motions by 10/19/2012; the parties shall file their Joint Status Report by 1/18/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
DENNIS FLORER,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
DEVON SCHRUM, BRANDY JONES,
CARLA SCHETTLER, ALAN WALTER,
RICH MOSS, STEVE SUNDBERG, RON
KNIGHT, CHRIS BOWMAN, STEVE
SICLAIRE, STEVE BARKER, ALAN
KUNZ, JOHN CAMPBELL, WILL PAUL, S.
SUKERT, KURT GRUBB, CANDICE
GERMOAU, JULIE SMITH, SANDY
DIIMMEL, AL MOSLEY, MILES
LAWSON, RON FRAKER, JOHN OYEN,
DREW WALTMAN, GARY PIERCE,
MARK KUCZA, DON HOLLBROOK,
GERMAINE BENSON, LINDA
BELANGER, ELDON VAIL, LAURA
WYCKOFF-MEYER, GUSTAVE MEZA,
ALAN ROOKSTOOL, EDUARDO
MICHEL, (FNU) DANIEL, LORI
SCAMAHORN, and JOHN DOES 1-2,

19
20

No. C11-5135 BHS/KLS
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
PRETRIAL DEADLINES

Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.

21
22

ECF No. 92. Defendants are opposed to the motion. ECF No. 94, at 3.
BACKGROUND

23
24
25

All discovery was to be completed in this case by January 6, 2012. ECF No. 61. The
Court extended that deadline to January 26, 2012. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff was granted leave to

26
ORDER- 1

1

amend his complaint for a second time on March 29, 2012. ECF No. 86. He added Eric Jackson

2

as a defendant. ECF No. 84.

3
4

On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff mailed Discovery Request No. 2 to E. Jackson and Second
Supplement to Discovery Request No. 2 to D. Schrum. ECF No. 94, at 2. However, because the

5
requests were made after the discovery deadline had already passed, counsel for Defendants
6
7

returned them to Plaintiff with an explanation letter. Id. Plaintiff now asks the Court to re-open

8

discovery for sixty days so that he may re-send these interrogatories and file motions to compel,

9

if necessary. ECF No. 92. Defendants oppose the motion because Plaintiff has shown no good

10

cause for the delay. Alternatively, they propose that discovery be opened for the limited purpose

11

of allowing a single set of interrogatories directed to Defendant Jackson and that the other

12

pretrial deadlines be extended accordingly.

13
DISCUSSION
14
15

A scheduling order may only be modified for good cause and with the Court’s consent.

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The stringent requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)’s “good cause”

17

standard considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth

18

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” for modification of pretrial

19

order’s scheduling deadline means that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the diligent

20

efforts of the party seeking the extension; carelessness is not compatible with finding of

21
22

diligence and offers no reason for grant of relief. Id.; Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison

23

Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (If the party seeking the modification was not diligent,

24

the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not be granted).

25
26

Plaintiff has not shown any reason why he did not pursue the requested discovery of
Defendant Shrum earlier. He cannot assert that he was diligent in meeting the scheduling
ORDER- 2

1

deadline when he took no action for months after the close of discovery, with no explanation.

2

However, because he was allowed to amend his complaint to add Defendant Jackson, he should

3

be allowed to request discovery from Defendant Jackson.

4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

5
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion (No. 92) shall be granted in part and denied in part.

6
7

Plaintiff’s motion is Denied as to his request to send additional interrogatories to Defendant

8

Schrum; the motion is Granted as to Plaintiff’s request to send interrogatories to Defendant

9

Jackson.

10
11
12

(2)

The pre-trial deadlines in this case are re-set as follows: Discovery (limited to

Defendant Jackson) shall be completed by August 17, 2012; Dispositive Motions shall be filed
by October 19, 2012; the parties shall file their Joint Status Report by January 18, 2013.

13
(3)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

14
15

DATED this 18th day of June, 2012.

A

16

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER- 3