United States District Court, W.D. Washington
LONGYEAR MALNATI & AHRENS, PLLC Elizabeth A. Hanley, WSBA
# 38233 Reed Longyear Malnati & Ahrens, PLLC Attorney for
KIOVSKY DUWALDT, LLC Elizabeth I. Kiovsky, pro hac
vice Kiovsky Duwaldt, LLC 2820 Welton St. Attorney for
OFFICES OF THOMAS J. OWENS Thomas J. Owens, WSBA #23868 Law
Offices of Thomas J. Owens Attorney for Defendant
JOINT STIPULATED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY
DEADLINE TO COMPLETE A DEPOSITION
S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
parties to this action, by and through their respective
counsel of record, respectfully request that the Court grant
their Joint Stipulated Motion to Extend the Discovery
Deadline, for the limited purpose of completing the
deposition of lay witness Mr. Dennis Luttrell.
Ms. Nguyen seeks to depose Mr. Dennis Luttrell, a former
employee of CenturyLink, Inc. and Qwest Corporation
(“Defendants”). Mr. Luttrell is a critical
witness in this employment case, as during the relevant time,
he was the direct supervisor of Plaintiff. As Defendants no
longer employ Mr. Luttrell, Plaintiff could not simply note
Mr. Luttrell for deposition by serving Defendants. Mr.
Luttrell resides in Nevada, and Plaintiff's counsel was
unable to locate him or obtain a returned call from him
regarding his deposition date and time, despite many
attempts, until June 29, 2018. Plaintiff's counsel
intended to depose Mr. Luttrell on July 6, 2018, a date
agreed to by Defendant. However, Mr. Luttrell has stated that
he is in the mountains in an unidentified location until the
evening of July 6, 2018. He has stated that he is available
for a deposition on July 13, 2018. Defense counsel is
available to appear for Mr. Luttrell's deposition on July
13, 2018. However, since Mr. Luttrell cannot be located for
service of a subpoena until after July 6, 2018, given the
remote location he states he is in until that date, a
location he has not disclosed despite request, Plaintiff
requests that she have until July 20, 2018 to complete the
deposition of Mr. Luttrell, should any issues with service
which would preclude completion of the deposition as planned
on July 13, 2018.
Court has set the deadline for completing discovery as July
8, 2018. Minute Order Setting Trial Date and Related
Dates, Dkt. # 16. This is the first request by the
parties for an extension to the deadlines set by the Court,
and is made for a limited purpose. The parties do not
anticipate that the stipulated motion for extension of the
time to depose Mr. Luttrell would interfere with their
ability to comply with other deadlines set by the Court, and
accordingly, are not requesting other modification of the
scheduling order may be modified for good cause and with the
Court's consent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The Rule 16
“good cause” requirement primarily considers the
diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial
schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence
of the party seeking the extension.” Id.
(internal citation and quote marks omitted). “Mere
failure to complete discovery within the time allowed does
not constitute good cause for an extension or
continuance.” LR 16(b)(4).
cause” exists in this case for modification of the
scheduling order. Plaintiff has diligently sought to obtain
the address and availability for deposition of witness Mr.
Luttrell, who is located in Nevada. Mr. Luttrell has not been
at his residential address, and despite many attempts to
reach him, had not responded until Plaintiff's counsel
reached him by telephone on June 29, 2018. Defendants could
not have assisted in procuring Mr. Luttrell's deposition
earlier as he is no longer their employee and they likewise
have no control over Mr. Luttrell's location or schedule.
Because of the unusual circumstance relating to a
non-party's travel schedule, the parties agreed to
jointly request modification of the scheduling order to allow
for completion of this deposition.
the parties respectfully request that the Court grant their
joint stipulated motion to continue the discovery deadline to
July 20, 2018, for the purpose of completing the deposition
of Mr. Luttrell.
 A motion is pending before the Court
presently for a protective order against Plaintiff's Rule
30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants, which were noted to occur
before the discovery cutoff. Defendants' Motion for
Protective Order, Dkt. # 31. Should the Court deny
Defendants' motion, Plaintiff will request that she be
permitted to complete those discovery depositions on a date
which may be after the discovery deadline, as the anticipated
earliest date the parties expect a ruling from the Court will
fall after the deadline for completing discovery. However,
that is an issue which will be addressed in separate