THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BALANZA ASIA CO., LTD., a Hong Kong ) IN ADMIRALTY AND AT LAW corporation, ) ) Cause No. 2:21-cv-01439-BJR Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) STIPULATED MOTION FOR ) CONTINUANCE OF CASE EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF ) SCHEDULE DEADLINES WASHINGTON, INC., a Washington ) corporation, ) NOTE FOR MOTION: ) June 16, 2022 Defendant. ) )
COME NOW both parties to this action, plaintiff Balanza Asia Co. Ltd. and defendant Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors”), and jointly request that the Court extend all case schedule deadlines. This is the parties’ second request for a case schedule continuance as is further explained below. This is one of two actions in this Court in which two shipper-interest plaintiffs have sued Expeditors (the other is 2:21-cv-01184-JHC, in which a substantially similar motion will be filed) seeking recovery of damages related to cargo lost on the vessel ONE AQUILA in a common weather event at sea on October 30, 2020. Expeditors operated as a non-vessel operating common carrier as defined by 46 CFR §515.2(k) and (m)(2) (“NVOCC”) in the shipments that are the subjects of both actions. As an NVOCC, Expeditors is a documented carrier of record, but does not itself transport cargo. Rather, it contracts with actual ocean carriers for the physical transport of the cargo its shipper customers book with it. As an NVOCC, Expeditors contends any liability it might have to the plaintiffs in the two actions should be the responsibility of other documented carriers of record, and has brought indemnity suits against them in two actions pending in the Southern District of New York as required by contractual forum selection clauses. Expeditors’ indemnity action against ocean carrier Hyundai Merchant Marine Company, Ltd. (“HMM”), SDNY No. 1:21-cv-09068- RA-OTW, relates to this action; and its indemnity action against defendant Ocean Network Express, Pte., Ltd. (“ONE”), SDNY No. 21-cv-08405-VSB-OTW, relates to Case No. 2:21-cv- 01184-JCC. Expeditors’ challenge in defending plaintiffs’ claims in this action and in Case No. 2:21-cv-01184-JHC is that, as an NVOCC, it does not have the evidence or access to witnesses needed to defend the claims. It must obtain through discovery such evidence from “upstream carriers” such as HMM and ONE. Expeditors has sought discovery, including FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions, from HMM and ONE in the two SDNY actions mentioned above, but has not yet obtained it as explained below. The discovery deadline in both this action and 2:21-cv-01184-JHC is August 1, 2022. Following an initial discovery conference on December 17, 2021 in SDNY Case No. 21-cv- 08405-VSB-OTW, the SDNY set a case schedule with discovery closing in that matter on August 26, 2022. A copy of that order is attached. Expeditors urged, and the court accepted, this date so that it would be roughly concurrent with the discovery deadline in the two actions in this Court, thereby ensuring that Expeditors could obtain necessary discovery in time to use it. On May 6, 2022, the SDNY issued an order consolidating for discovery purposes and superseding prior Initial Case Management Scheduling Orders in three SDNY ONE AQUILA actions, including the two brought by Expeditors. A copy of that order is attached. On June 8, 2022, after holding a status conference of all counsel, the SDNY issued an order staying discovery in 1:21-cv-09068-RA-OTW through July 30, 2022 (not stating when it will be reopened), which is the indemnity action Expeditors filed related to the instant action. A copy of the order is attached. That order also provides that fact discovery in 21-cv-08405- VSB-OTW will close on August 15, 2022, but it sets a motion briefing schedule to address the parties’ discovery disputes that might result in further delays. Counsel for ONE in that action has asserted that he is unable to obtain discovery information and documentation within the stated timeframe. See attached correspondence to SDNY from all counsel, including counsel for ONE. Thus, it remains uncertain whether Expeditors will be able to obtain the necessary discovery under the existing deadline. On April 22, 2022, the parties hereto jointly moved for a case schedule continuance in this matter as a result of obstacles Expeditors was facing in the SDNY actions obtaining information its expert required. The Court granted that motion, and set case schedule deadlines as follows: Reports from expert witness under FRCP 26(a)(2) due June 17, 2022 Reports from rebuttal expert witnesses July 18, 2022 Discovery completed by August 1, 2022 All dispositive motions must be filed by August 15, 2022 Rule 39.1 Mediation deadline September 30, 2022 All motions in limine must be filed by November 7, 2022 Joint Pretrial Statement November 14, 2022 Pretrial conference November 28, 2022 Length of Bench Trial 1-2 days Bench Trial Date December 12, 2022 Because of SDNY’s recent consolidation of ONE AQUILA matters for discovery purposes; staying of discovery; and ordering a discovery motion briefing schedule, Expeditors’ challenges in obtaining necessary discovery are ongoing, and it is not confident it will obtain it from the ocean carriers in time to make use of it in the instant action by the current case schedule deadlines. Plaintiffs in both actions before this Court have agreed to join Expeditors in its current request for another case schedule continuance. The parties propose that the scheduling order in this case be modified as follows: Reports from expert witness under FRCP 26(a)(2) due September 16, 2022 Reports from rebuttal expert witnesses October 17, 2022 Discovery completed by October 31, 2022 All dispositive motions must be filed by October 31, 2022 Rule 39.1 Mediation deadline November 30, 2022 All motions in limine must be filed by December 12, 2022 Joint Pretrial Statement January 26, 2023 Pretrial conference February 13, 2023 Length of Bench Trial 1-2 days Bench Trial Date February 27, 2023 The parties request this extension of deadlines pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(A), which provides:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BALANZA ASIA CO., LTD., a Hong Kong ) IN ADMIRALTY AND AT LAW corporation, ) ) Cause No. 2:21-cv-01439-BJR Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) STIPULATED MOTION FOR ) CONTINUANCE OF CASE EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF ) SCHEDULE DEADLINES WASHINGTON, INC., a Washington ) corporation, ) NOTE FOR MOTION: ) June 16, 2022 Defendant. ) )
COME NOW both parties to this action, plaintiff Balanza Asia Co. Ltd. and defendant Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors”), and jointly request that the Court extend all case schedule deadlines. This is the parties’ second request for a case schedule continuance as is further explained below. This is one of two actions in this Court in which two shipper-interest plaintiffs have sued Expeditors (the other is 2:21-cv-01184-JHC, in which a substantially similar motion will be filed) seeking recovery of damages related to cargo lost on the vessel ONE AQUILA in a common weather event at sea on October 30, 2020. Expeditors operated as a non-vessel operating common carrier as defined by 46 CFR §515.2(k) and (m)(2) (“NVOCC”) in the shipments that are the subjects of both actions. As an NVOCC, Expeditors is a documented carrier of record, but does not itself transport cargo. Rather, it contracts with actual ocean carriers for the physical transport of the cargo its shipper customers book with it. As an NVOCC, Expeditors contends any liability it might have to the plaintiffs in the two actions should be the responsibility of other documented carriers of record, and has brought indemnity suits against them in two actions pending in the Southern District of New York as required by contractual forum selection clauses. Expeditors’ indemnity action against ocean carrier Hyundai Merchant Marine Company, Ltd. (“HMM”), SDNY No. 1:21-cv-09068- RA-OTW, relates to this action; and its indemnity action against defendant Ocean Network Express, Pte., Ltd. (“ONE”), SDNY No. 21-cv-08405-VSB-OTW, relates to Case No. 2:21-cv- 01184-JCC. Expeditors’ challenge in defending plaintiffs’ claims in this action and in Case No. 2:21-cv-01184-JHC is that, as an NVOCC, it does not have the evidence or access to witnesses needed to defend the claims. It must obtain through discovery such evidence from “upstream carriers” such as HMM and ONE. Expeditors has sought discovery, including FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions, from HMM and ONE in the two SDNY actions mentioned above, but has not yet obtained it as explained below. The discovery deadline in both this action and 2:21-cv-01184-JHC is August 1, 2022. Following an initial discovery conference on December 17, 2021 in SDNY Case No. 21-cv- 08405-VSB-OTW, the SDNY set a case schedule with discovery closing in that matter on August 26, 2022. A copy of that order is attached. Expeditors urged, and the court accepted, this date so that it would be roughly concurrent with the discovery deadline in the two actions in this Court, thereby ensuring that Expeditors could obtain necessary discovery in time to use it. On May 6, 2022, the SDNY issued an order consolidating for discovery purposes and superseding prior Initial Case Management Scheduling Orders in three SDNY ONE AQUILA actions, including the two brought by Expeditors. A copy of that order is attached. On June 8, 2022, after holding a status conference of all counsel, the SDNY issued an order staying discovery in 1:21-cv-09068-RA-OTW through July 30, 2022 (not stating when it will be reopened), which is the indemnity action Expeditors filed related to the instant action. A copy of the order is attached. That order also provides that fact discovery in 21-cv-08405- VSB-OTW will close on August 15, 2022, but it sets a motion briefing schedule to address the parties’ discovery disputes that might result in further delays. Counsel for ONE in that action has asserted that he is unable to obtain discovery information and documentation within the stated timeframe. See attached correspondence to SDNY from all counsel, including counsel for ONE. Thus, it remains uncertain whether Expeditors will be able to obtain the necessary discovery under the existing deadline. On April 22, 2022, the parties hereto jointly moved for a case schedule continuance in this matter as a result of obstacles Expeditors was facing in the SDNY actions obtaining information its expert required. The Court granted that motion, and set case schedule deadlines as follows: Reports from expert witness under FRCP 26(a)(2) due June 17, 2022 Reports from rebuttal expert witnesses July 18, 2022 Discovery completed by August 1, 2022 All dispositive motions must be filed by August 15, 2022 Rule 39.1 Mediation deadline September 30, 2022 All motions in limine must be filed by November 7, 2022 Joint Pretrial Statement November 14, 2022 Pretrial conference November 28, 2022 Length of Bench Trial 1-2 days Bench Trial Date December 12, 2022 Because of SDNY’s recent consolidation of ONE AQUILA matters for discovery purposes; staying of discovery; and ordering a discovery motion briefing schedule, Expeditors’ challenges in obtaining necessary discovery are ongoing, and it is not confident it will obtain it from the ocean carriers in time to make use of it in the instant action by the current case schedule deadlines. Plaintiffs in both actions before this Court have agreed to join Expeditors in its current request for another case schedule continuance. The parties propose that the scheduling order in this case be modified as follows: Reports from expert witness under FRCP 26(a)(2) due September 16, 2022 Reports from rebuttal expert witnesses October 17, 2022 Discovery completed by October 31, 2022 All dispositive motions must be filed by October 31, 2022 Rule 39.1 Mediation deadline November 30, 2022 All motions in limine must be filed by December 12, 2022 Joint Pretrial Statement January 26, 2023 Pretrial conference February 13, 2023 Length of Bench Trial 1-2 days Bench Trial Date February 27, 2023 The parties request this extension of deadlines pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(A), which provides:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: with our without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires. FRCP 6(b)(1) should be “liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983)). The phrase “good cause,” used frequently in our legal system, “means little more than that there is a good reason for . . . the action proposed to be taken.” California Trout v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 572 F.3d 1003, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009). An extension requested under FRCP 6(b)(1) “normally will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id., at 1027 n.1. Here, Expeditors is coordinating complex litigation relating to the same loss of cargo across two districts and is simply attempting to litigate the merits of the cases in the most efficient manner. Expeditors is acting in good faith and actively pursuing the discovery related to its claims before this Court. Plaintiff concurs by joining in this motion. Given the extraordinary circumstances presented above, and that the parties are in agreement, the Court should grant the requested case schedule continuance. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of June, 2022. LAW OFFICES OF VI JEAN RENO LANE POWELL PC
s/ Vi Jean Reno s/ Steven W. Block Vi Jean Reno, WSBA No. 9385 Steven W. Block, WSBA No. 24299 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: vjreno@renolawsea.com Email: BlockS@LanePowell.com Phone: (206) 622-4100 Phone: (206) 223-7000 Fax: (206) 464-0461 Fax: (206) 223-7107 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Balanza Asia Co. Ltd. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
The parties having so stipulated, and the Court finding good cause for entry hereof, ° NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case schedule be modified in accordance with the dates listed above. Dated this 24th day of June, 2022.
Abas aban g Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Court Judge STIPULATED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE SCHEDULE 1400 FE ONO SUITE 4000 DEADLINES - 6 P.O. BOX 91302 NO. 2:21-CV-01439-BJR SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402