Kucherov v. MTC Financial Inc et al
ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 25 Motion to Dismiss; granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendants must respond to discovery requests by 10/6/2017. Joint Status Report due by 9/22/2017.(TG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
MTC FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,
CASE NO. C17-5050 BHS
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS OR FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF DEADLINE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants CIT Bank N.A., MTC
Financial, Inc., and OWB REO, LLC’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss or,
alternatively, motion for protective order (Dkt. 25) and motion to extend deadline for
discovery (Dkt. 27).
On January 26, 2017, the Court issued an order setting deadlines as follows: Joint
Status Report (“JSR”) due by 4/26/2017, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 4/12/2017,
Initial Disclosure Deadline is 4/19/2017. Dkt. 7. On May 2 and 31, 2017, the Court
warned the parties that they must file a JSR or face dismissal.
On July 18, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively, motion for
protective order. Dkt. 25. On July 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to extend
deadline for discovery. Dkt. 27. On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff Leonid Kucherov
(“Kucherov”) unilaterally filed a joint status report. Dkt. 29. On August 2, 2017,
Defendants objected to the status report. Dkt. 30. On August 4, 2017, Kucherov
responded to Defendants’ motions, Dkts. 32, 33, and Defendants replied to their motion
ORDER - 1
for an extension of time. Dkt. 31. On August 11, 2017, Defendants replied to their
motion to dismiss. Dkt. 34.
Regarding the JSR, the Court finds that Kucherov’s failure to cooperate or comply
with the Court’s order does not justify dismissal at this point. Kucherov, however, shall
cooperate with Defendants and file a JSR no later than September 22, 2017. Failure to do
so may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Regarding Defendants’ request for a protective order, general objections to
allegedly excessive discovery are disfavored. On the other hand, the Court will grant
relief to specific discovery requests on a request-by-request basis or excessive discovery
based upon an actual showing that the requested discovery is disproportional. General
allegations that responses will be burdensome does not meet the burden to protect a party
from its discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion on
Regarding an extension of time to respond to discovery, the Court finds that there
is good cause to extend the deadline. Therefore, Defendants must respond to Kucherov’s
discovery requests no later than October 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of September, 2017.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
ORDER - 2
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?