United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR JUDGE
following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the
Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge:
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to
extend certain deadlines (Dkt. No. 56). The Court set forth
the facts underlying the present motion in a previous order
and will not recite them here. (See Dkt. Nos. 46.)
The Court previously granted the parties' stipulated
motion to extend certain case schedule deadlines.
(See Dkt. No. 44.) And the Court granted
Defendant's motions for extensions of time to respond to
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), finding that
Defendant required additional time to review the discovery
produced by Plaintiff and to take depositions. (See
Dkt. Nos. 46, 52.)
seeks a further 30-day extension of its deadline to respond
to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), and a corresponding
extension of various case schedule deadlines. (Dkt. No. 56 at
1-2.) Defendant asserts that its requested extensions are
necessary to allow it sufficient time to review discovery
recently produced by Plaintiff regarding third party Shah
Safari's role in the business relationship between
Plaintiff and Defendant. (Id. at 2, 5-6,
Defendant also cites the unavailability of its CEO, a
“key fact witness” and Defendant's Rule
30(b)(6) designee, following the birth of his first child.
(Id. at 2, 6-8.) In addition, it appears that the
depositions the Court originally found were necessary for
Defendant to adequately oppose Plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment have yet to occur. (See
Dkt. Nos. 46 at 2-3, 56 at 6-9, 58 at 6-7.)
party opposing a motion for summary judgment demonstrates
“that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
essential to justify its opposition [to a motion for summary
judgment], the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or
deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations
or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate
order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). “The requesting party must
show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific
facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the
facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are
essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home
& Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,
525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). The court may deny a Rule
56(d) motion if the movant has failed to diligently pursue
discovery. Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav.
Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1990).
of the case schedule requires good cause and the judge's
consent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R.
16(b)(5). Good cause is determined at the court's
discretion. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). The court looks to the
diligence of the party seeking amendment as well as the
prejudice the opposing party may suffer. Id. at 609.
If a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension, ” there
is good cause. Id.; see Noyes v. Kelly
Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 (9th Cir. 2007).
previously discussed by the Court, it is appropriate to defer
consideration of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
until Defendant has had adequate time to review the discovery
disclosed in this matter and to take necessary depositions.
(See Dkt. No. 46 at 2-3.) As discussed above, it
appears that those depositions have still not been taken.
(See Dkt. Nos. 46 at 2-3, 56 at 6-9, 58 at 6-7.)
Further, Defendant's declaration in support of the
instant motion establishes that additional time is required
to review the recently-provided discovery regarding Shah
Safari and details the parties' efforts to schedule
depositions. (See Dkt. No. 57 at 5-8.) And the
record does not establish that Defendant has failed to
diligently pursue discovery, as Defendant has acted within
the deadlines set by the Court's most recent scheduling
order. (See Dkt. No. 44.) In addition, for the
reasons set forth above and to ensure the parties have
adequate time to complete discovery, the Court finds good
cause to modify the case schedule. However, the Court notes
the significant number of continuances already granted in
this case. The parties should not expect future requests for
continuances to be granted.
Defendant's motion to extend certain deadlines (Dkt. No.
56) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d), the deadline for Defendant to file a response brief to
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is
extended to January 20, 2020. Plaintiff's reply brief
shall be filed no later than January 24, 2020. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to re-note Plaintiff's pending motion for
partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) to Friday, January 24,
the Court hereby ORDERS that:
Discovery shall be completed by February 17, 2020;
Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 13,
Mediation shall be held no later than March 20, 2020;
Trial briefs and proposed voir dire and jury
instructions shall be filed ...