King County v. Abernathy ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KING COUNTY, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-0060-DGE-SKV 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ALTER PRETRIAL 11 MICHAEL J. ABERNATHY, et al., SCHEDULE 12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Alter Pretrial Schedule, 15 Dkt. 126. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the case record, and the governing law, 16 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for the reasons stated herein. 17 On July 26, 2021, the Court entered a Report and Recommendation on the parties’ cross 18 motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. 96. The parties filed their respective Objections to the 19 Report and Recommendation, see Dkts. 103, 105, & 108, and those Objections are currently 20 pending before the District Court. On September 28, 2021, the parties stipulated to extend the 21 expert disclosure deadlines from October 1, 2021, and October 22, 2021, to October 22, 2021, 22 and November 12, 2021, respectively. Dkt. 124 at 2. The Court granted the parties’ stipulation 23 on September 30, 2021. Dkt. 125. 1 Subsequently, on October 7, 2021, Defendants filed the present Motion to Alter the 2 Pretrial Schedule. Dkt. 126. Defendants ask the Court to extend the pretrial deadlines until after 3 it has issued a final order on the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment, arguing that 4 because the final order will “significantly narrow the scope of the issues remaining for trial,” the 5 parties will be better able to prepare for expert testimony, discovery, and final dispositive 6 motions following the ruling. Id. at 2. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion, arguing that 7 further case delays will impact its ability to plan for completion of its project. Dkt. 130 at 5. 8 Further, Plaintiff contends Defendants have not demonstrated good cause for modifying the 9 pretrial scheduling order. Id. at 4–5. 10 Pretrial scheduling orders are designed to allow the district court to better manage its 11 docket and facilitate a more efficient disposition of cases. See Johnson v. Mammoth 12 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). A scheduling order “is not a frivolous 13 piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. 14 (citation omitted). Instead, a scheduling order may be changed only for “good cause” and with 15 the court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” means that scheduling deadlines 16 cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 17 (citations omitted). In other words, if the party seeking the extension “was not diligent,” then 18 good cause does not exist and the inquiry should end. Id. “Although the existence or degree of 19 prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 20 motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” 21 Id. (citation omitted). Ultimately, a district court has “broad discretion” to modify case 22 deadlines. United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). 23 1 Here, there is no indication that Defendants have not been diligent, and a limited 2 extension of the pretrial deadlines will better effectuate the purpose of the pretrial scheduling 3 order. This case presents numerous complex legal issues, nearly all of which will be resolved by 4 the District Court’s final order on the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment. 5 Extending the pretrial deadlines will prevent the parties from preparing for trial on potentially 6 moot issues, thereby promoting a more efficient and cost-effective disposition of the case. 7 For these reasons, the Court finds good cause for extending the pretrial schedule. 8 Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. 126, is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to revise the pretrial 9 schedule as follows: 10 Event Date 11 Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2) due: 1/21/2022 Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony under FRCP 26(A)(2) due: 2/11/2022 12 All motions related to discovery must be filed by this date and noted 3/11/2022 13 for consideration no later than the third Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2)): 14 Discovery to be completed by: 4/15/2022 15 All dispositive motions must be filed by this date and noted for 5/13/2022 consideration no later than the fourth Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d)): 16 17 The Clerk is also directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 18 David G. Estudillo. 19 Dated this 20th day of October, 2021. 20 A 21 S. KATE VAUGHAN 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23