Northwest Home Designing, Inc v. Benjamin Ryan Communities LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Continue. Discovery completed by 3/4/2016, Dispositive motions due by 3/10/2016, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 1/19/2016, Disco very Motions due by 2/5/2016, Motions in Limine due by 4/29/2016, Proposed pretrial order due by 5/6/2016, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by 2/2/2016, Voir dire/jury instructions/trial briefs due by 5/6/2016, Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/10/2016 at 01:30 PM before Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 NOTHWEST HOME DESIGNING, INC.,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 BENJAMIN RYAN COMMUNITIES,
LLC, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

CASE NO. C14-5808 BHS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE ALL DEADLINES

14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Northwest Home Designing, Inc.’s
15
(“Northwest Home”) motion to continue all deadlines (Dkt. 31). Northwest Home
16
requests a 120-day continuance of all deadlines in order to resolve discovery disputes,
17
complete expert disclosures, and prepare for trial. Id. at 4. Defendant Benjamin Ryan
18
Communities LLC (“Benjamin Ryan”) agrees there is good cause to extend the expert
19
disclosure deadlines, but contends the remaining deadlines should not be continued. Dkt.
20
34 at 2. Defendants Ramora Builders LLC and James Bays do not oppose Northwest
21
Home’s motion. Dkt. 37.
22

ORDER - 1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified

2 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Although
3 the Court may consider prejudice to the opposing party, “the focus of the inquiry is upon
4 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
5 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court has broad discretion in deciding
6 whether to grant or deny a request for a continuance. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263
7 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001).
8

Here, the Court finds good cause to extend the pretrial deadlines, but does not find

9 good cause to continue the trial date. The scheduling order has been adjusted to
10 accommodate the parties’ need for additional time to resolve discovery issues and other
11 pretrial matters. The new deadlines are as follows:
12

Disclosure of expert testimony:

January 19, 2016

13

Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony:

February 2, 2016

14

Discovery motions:

February 5, 2016

15

Discovery completed:

March 4, 2016

16

Dispositive motions:

March 10, 2016

17

Motions in limine:

April 29, 2016

18

Agreed pretrial order:

May 6, 2016

19

Trial briefs, proposed voir dire,
jury instructions, agreed neutral
statement of the case and
deposition designations:

May 6, 2016

Pretrial conference:

May 10, 2016

20
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

To the extent the parties believe the other side has been dilatory or unresponsive in

2 responding to discovery requests, a motion to compel rather than a motion to continue
3 would have been the appropriate method to seek relief. Because no party has filed a
4 motion to compel discovery, the Court is not fully briefed and therefore is unable to
5 determine where fault, if any, lies for discovery failures.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated this 21st day of December, 2015.

A

8
9

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3