Kucherov v. MTC Financial Inc et al

Filing 35

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)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 2 3 LEONID KUCHEROV, 4 5 6 Plaintiff, v. MTC FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants. 7 CASE NO. C17-5050 BHS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF DEADLINE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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 1 for an extension of time. Dkt. 31. On August 11, 2017, Defendants replied to their 2 motion to dismiss. Dkt. 34. 3 Regarding the JSR, the Court finds that Kucherov’s failure to cooperate or comply 4 with the Court’s order does not justify dismissal at this point. Kucherov, however, shall 5 cooperate with Defendants and file a JSR no later than September 22, 2017. Failure to do 6 so may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. Accordingly, the Court 7 DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 8 9 Regarding Defendants’ request for a protective order, general objections to allegedly excessive discovery are disfavored. On the other hand, the Court will grant 10 relief to specific discovery requests on a request-by-request basis or excessive discovery 11 based upon an actual showing that the requested discovery is disproportional. General 12 allegations that responses will be burdensome does not meet the burden to protect a party 13 from its discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion on 14 this issue. 15 Regarding an extension of time to respond to discovery, the Court finds that there 16 is good cause to extend the deadline. Therefore, Defendants must respond to Kucherov’s 17 discovery requests no later than October 6, 2017. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 7th day of September, 2017. 20 21 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 22 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?