A.A., by and through her parents and guardians, J.A. and W.A., Plaintiff,
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, a division of HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION ILLINOIS STATE PAC, NFP; THE BOEING COMPANY MASTER WELFARE PLAN; THE BOEING SERVICE CENTER FOR HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS; and EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE CR 7(E)(3)
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Leave of Court Pursuant to Local Rule CR 7(e)(3). Dkt. # 40. Defendants seek leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment limiting any award of benefits to the period prior to October 25, 2013. Dkt. # 40, Ex. A. Defendants anticipate filing a subsequent motion for summary judgment directed toward a broader set of issues or claims, thereby rendering the present motion a contemporaneous dispositive motion. As Defendants have failed to articulate grounds for the Court to grant the requested leave and for the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is DENIED.
Filing of contemporaneous dispositive motions shall only be permitted with leave of the Court. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(e)(3). Defendants have repeatedly informed the Court of their intent to file a cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff on June 20, 2013 (Dkt. # 33). See Dkt. # 40, p. 1 ("Defendants anticipate later filing a motion for summary judgment that is broader in scope."); Dkt. # 36, p. 1 (notifying the Court of intent to file cross-motion for summary judgment and requesting that the motions be considered concurrently); Dkt. # 42, Ex. A, p. 2 (informing opposing counsel of intent to file cross-motion for summary judgment on July 12, 2013). In their present motion, Defendants fail to articulate grounds for the Court to grant leave to file the present partial motion when they intend to file a contemporaneous, overlapping motion for summary judgment. Moreover, Defendants' appended partial motion is premature, as it requests that the Court temporally limit any award of benefits before the Court has decided as a matter of law whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
The Court declines to entertain further efforts to delay its resolution of the dispositive motion long pending in this case. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was noted for July 19, 2013 and has been fully briefed by the parties. Plaintiff has several times emphasized her desire for a resolution of her dispositive motion on its merits and declined to agree to a delay of the Court's consideration. See, e.g., Dkt. # 37, p. 1 ("Plaintiff does not agree to any such delay."). Defendants have long exceeded the self-imposed September 2, 2013 deadline by which they informed the Court that they would be filing their intended cross-motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. # 36, p. 2. In light of the Court's inherent authority to control its docket, Defendants are directed to file their motion for summary judgment, if any, within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, after which the Court will proceed to render its decision on Plaintiff's motion.
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave of Court Pursuant to Local Rule CR 7(e)(3) (Dkt. # 40) is DENIED. Defendants are directed to file any intended motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, after which the Court will ...