Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Microtouch, L.L.C. v. Doyle

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 28, 2018

MICROTOUCH, L.L.C. and 30/10 WEIGHT LOSS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
PAIGE DOYLE, AWAKEN 180 INC., NEWTON WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, PEABODY WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, QUINCY WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, and SEEKONK WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, Defendants. PAIGE DOYLE, AWAKEN 180 INC., NEWTON WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, PEABODY WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, QUINCY WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, and SEEKONK WEIGHTLOSS, LLC, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROTOUCH, L.L.C. and 30/10 WEIGHT LOSS, LLC, Counterclaim Defendants, and DR. ROCCO NELSON, an individual; and DR. LINDA DEGROOT (and their marital community); and one or more JOHN DOES, currently not known to Third Party Plaintiffs, Third Party Defendants.

          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Kim D. Stephens, Janissa A. Strabuk, Cecily C. Shiel, BUCHALTER LAW FIRM Bradley P. Thoreson, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Microtouch, L.L.C. And 30/10 Weight Loss, LLC.

          BUNDY LAW FIRM PLLC Howard E. Bundy, Caroline Fichter, Eric H. Karp, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Witmer, Karp, Warner & Ryan LLP Attorneys for Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Third Party Plaintiffs.

          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY CUTOFF FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPLETING DEPOSITIONS

          HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiffs Microtouch, L.L.C. and 30/10 Weight Loss, LLC, and Defendants Paige Doyle, Awaken 180 Inc., Newton Weightloss, LLC, Peabody Weightloss, LLC, Quincy Weightloss, LLC, and Seekonk Weightloss, LLC, for good cause detailed below, jointly move the Court to extend the discovery deadline in this matter by three (3) weeks-from July 13, 2018 to August 3, 2018-for the limited purpose of completing lay and expert witness depositions. All Parties are in agreement and do not oppose the extension of the discovery deadline for this purpose. Accordingly, pursuant to LCR 10(g), the Parties submit this stipulation:

         I. PERTINENT FACTS

         On or about December 11, 2017, this Court set July 13, 2018 as the deadline for the completion of discovery. This deadline remains in place today. The Parties are working to complete document discovery by this date, but have reached an agreement to schedule depositions beyond the discovery date to ensure there is sufficient time to complete document production and review of documents before deposing witnesses, and to facilitate the scheduling of lay and expert depositions.

         II. ARGUMENT

         Good cause exists for extending the discovery date at issue. The Parties have been working to ensure that production of documents can be completed by the existing discovery cutoff of July 13, 2018. The Parties have met and conferred on the remaining ESI sources for document discovery, and have been in contact regarding anticipated timelines for these ESI and document productions. It is clear from these communications that the Parties may require until July 13, 2018 to complete their document search and production processes.

         While discovery is progressing through the Parties' cooperation, the Parties anticipate that an additional three weeks will be required to complete deposition discovery. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants wish to take depositions in this case of lay and expert witnesses, and will need additional time after document production is complete to review documents and prepare for these depositions. For example, Plaintiffs want to depose Defendant Paige Doyle, but will require receipt of her documents before they are able to do so in a productive manner. Defendants will not be able to complete their production of all responsive documents until the present July 13 deadline. If Plaintiffs are forced to depose key witnesses before those witnesses' document productions are complete, this could result in hardship and could even result in the unfortunate need to reopen or take additional depositions regarding newly disclosed evidence, resulting in unnecessary burden and delay.

         To date, the Parties have worked together to schedule depositions throughout the month of July and have reached an agreement on proposed dates for the depositions of key lay witness and expert witness depositions. All of the proposed depositions can be completed on or before August 3, 2018. This brief three-week extension to complete deposition discovery would not result in the need to modify any other remaining deadlines, and would ensure that fair and fulsome discovery is achieved.

         This Court thus has good cause to extend the deadline for completion of lay and expert depositions.

         III. CONCLUSION

         For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant this Stipulation and extend the discovery deadline to August 3, 2018 for the limited purpose of conducting deposition discovery:

Event

Current Deadline

Requested Extended Deadline

Deadline to Complete Document Discovery

July 13, 2018

Unchanged

Deadline to Complete Deposition Discovery

July 13, 2018

August 3, 2018


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.