Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Ash Grove Cement Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER CASE NO. C20-1301JLR ALLIANCE, 11 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO 12 v. CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES 13 ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY, 14 15 Defendant. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Before the court is the parties’ stipulated motion to continue the trial date and 18 pretrial deadlines in this matter. (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 22).) The court has considered the 19 motion, all submissions filed in support of the motion, the relevant portions of the record, 20 and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion and 21 CONTINUES the trial date to January 9, 2023. 22 // 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (“Soundkeeper”) filed its complaint in this 3 court on August 31, 2020. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2).) The court issued its scheduling order 4 on December 4, 2020. (Sched. Order (Dkt. # 12).) In relevant part, the court set the 5 deadline for amending pleadings and for the expert disclosures on December 15, 2021; 6 the completion of discovery on February 14, 2022; the dispositive motions deadline on 7 March 15, 2022; and the trial date on June 13, 2022. (Id. at 1-2.) 8 On October 22, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to extend 9 certain deadlines. (10/22/21 Order (Dkt. # 19); see 10/22/21 Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 18).) The 10 court extended the deadline for amending pleadings and for expert disclosures to January 11 14, 2022, and the deadline for completion of discovery to March 1, 2022. (10/22/21 12 Order.) The parties represented to the court that they sought the extension to continue 13 settlement discussions in the hope that they would be able to present a proposed consent 14 decree to the court before the end of 2021. (10/22/21 Stip. Mot. at 1.) 15 On December 16, 2021, counsel for Ash Grove moved to withdraw. (Mot. to 16 Withdraw (Dkt. # 20).) Counsel represented that “[p]rofessional considerations require 17 termination of the representation.” (Id. at 1.) The motion to withdraw is still pending 18 before the court. (See generally Dkt.) 19 The parties now ask the court to continue the trial date and case schedule “for six 20 months or more as appropriate for a continued trial date.” (Stip. Mot. at 1-2.) They 21 argue that good cause exists because they are continuing to engage in settlement 22 discussions and that “a continuance will allow Defendant[] time to secure new counsel 1 and to give both parties sufficient time to conduct litigation activities if negotiations fail.” 2 (See generally Stip. Mot.) 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 The court issues scheduling orders setting trial and related dates to provide a 5 reasonable schedule for the resolution of disputes. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the 7 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” for purposes of Rule 16 8 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order. 9 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). To show 10 “good cause,” a party must show that it could not meet the deadline imposed by the 11 scheduling order despite its diligence. Id. at 609. 12 The court finds that the parties have shown good cause to grant a six-month trial 13 continuance. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to continue. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to 16 continue the trial date and pretrial deadlines (Dkt. # 22) and CONTINUES the trial date 17 to January 9, 2023. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a revised scheduling order that 18 resets any unexpired pretrial deadlines based on this new trial date. 19 DATED this 22nd day of December, 2021. 20 A 21 JAMES L. ROBART 22 United States District Judge