United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
HEVI MOHAMMED, individually, and as personal representative of the estate of ALI MUSTAFA SAEED, and the beneficiaries of the estate including K.S., and V.S.; DAWOOD AMEDI, individually and KAVI MOHAMMED, individually, and as parents and legal guardians of N. A. and L. A., and AMEDI'S LANDSCAPING, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION; and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Defendants.
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Resource
Management Associates, Inc.'s (“RMA”) Motion
to Compel and Motion to Amend Case Schedule (Dkt. # 65) and
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike RMA's Experts (Dkt. #
62). For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS the Motion to Compel and
DENIES the Motion to Strike Defendants'
filed suit on October 4, 2016. Dkt. # 1. On February 22,
2017, the Court set the trial date and related deadlines.
Dkt. # 14. In September 2017, the parties stipulated to
extending their deadlines to disclose experts and complete
discovery. Dkt. # 22. Defendant RMA sought a further
extension of time to complete discovery, which would result
in a continuance of the parties' April 2018 trial date.
Dkt. # 30. The Court denied RMA's motion to continue the
trial date. Dkt. # 61. Therefore, the deadline to exchange
expert reports remained fixed at November 1, 2017, the
deadline to complete discovery remained fixed at December 22,
2017, and the trial is set for April 2, 2018.
requests that the Court compel Plaintiffs to produce certain
documents, submit to independent medical examinations, and
continue the discovery deadlines and trial date. Dkt. # 65.
RMA argues that equity requires the Court to extend certain
deadlines, including continuing the trial date, so that this
case may be tried on the merits.
governs motions to modify scheduling orders and requires the
moving party to show “good cause” for any such
request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.
1992), Paz v. City of Aberdeen, C13-5104 RJB, 2013
WL 6163016, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 25, 2013). The Ninth
Circuit explained the “good cause” standard for
the purposes of Rule 16 in Johnson:
Rule 16(b)'s “good cause” standard primarily
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.
The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the submission. Moreover, carelessness is not
compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason
for a grant of relief. Although the existence or degree of
prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply
additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry
is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking
modification. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citations omitted).
February 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing on this matter.
Based on the parties' representations, the Court finds
good cause to modify its scheduling order. To be sure, the
Court notes that the parties have not been diligent in
pursuing all the required discovery in this matter, which
has, in part, led to the current scheduling conflict.
Moreover, the discovery pursued and produced by the parties
has been done strategically in ways that sound more in
gamesmanship than camaraderie. Nevertheless, the Court
GRANTS RMA's motion to amend the
scheduling order. Dkt. # 65. The Court will continue
the trial until August 13, 2018. The Court directs the Clerk
to enter a new case schedule pursuant to this Order.
upon counsel's testimony during the February 26th
hearing, the Court is satisfied that the discovery sought is
relevant and necessary to the litigation. Therefore, Court
GRANTS RMA's motion to compel certain
examinations, expert witness documents, and financial
argue that the Court should strike Defendants' expert
witnesses because Defendants were dilatory in their
disclosures. Dkt. # 62. The Court finds that Defendants
timely disclosed their rebuttal expert witnesses. The Court
will permit both the experts and their reports to remain at
this time. However, once Plaintiffs rest their case at trial,
the Court will take a brief recess in order to allow
Defendants the opportunity to articulate which rebuttal
expert witnesses they expect will testify and precisely what
rebuttal testimony each witness will offer. The Court will do
this to prevent any abuse or prejudice that may arise from
Defendants disguising primary expert witnesses as rebuttal
also argue that Defendants' experts will engage in
duplicitous testimony. The Court will reserve judgment on
this matter. If at trial it appears that Defendants'
experts are offering duplicative testimony, Plaintiffs may
object on the record and the Court will make a ruling at that
time. Moreover, if it appears at trial that the rebuttal
experts are offering primary expert testimony, then
Plaintiffs may raise the proper objections at trial and the
Court will rule on the issue at that time.
this reason, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' ...