BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 BGH HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-CV-1408-RSL 9

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING D.L. 11 v. EVANS BANK’S SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF 12 D.L. EVANS BANK, FROM A DEADLINE 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on defendant D.L. Evans Bank’s “Second Motion for 16 Relief from a Deadline.” Dkt. #93. D.L. Evans Bank seeks an extension of the previously 17 ordered October 6, 2019 deadline to complete discovery. 18 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” means that “the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite 20 the party’s diligence.” Paz v. City of Aberdeen, No. C13-5104 RJB, 2013 WL 6163016, at *2 21 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 25, 2013) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 22 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should 23 end.” Id. 24 Since D.L. Evans Bank filed this second motion for relief from a deadline, this Court 25 entered the parties’ stipulated protective order (Dkt. 98) and an order on the parties’ agreement 26 regarding discovery of electronically stored information (Dkt. #104). Both parties have 27 expressed desire to take depositions past the previously ordered deadline. Plaintiffs request that 28 the Court extend the deadline to allow additional depositions to be taken through November 8, 1 2019. Dkt #96. On the other hand, defendant has shown diligence in seeking discovery, but 2 cites ongoing delays in receiving of discovery from plaintiffs and requests that the Court extend 3 the discovery cutoff by sixty days from the date this order is issued. Dkt. #93-94, 99-100. 4 Although plaintiffs inform the Court that the parties have now met and conferred regarding 5 certain discovery issues in this case, they do not contest defendant’s characterization of their 6 delay in producing discovery as ordered by the Court. See Dkt. #96; Dkt. #97 (Cadranell Decl.) 7 at ¶ 2-3. 8 For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds good cause for modifying the case 9 scheduling order. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Defendant’s Second Motion for Relief from a 10 Deadline is therefore GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the discovery deadline for this case 11 be extended by sixty days from the date of this order. Because this extension will impact all 12 other case deadlines in this case, the Court will issue an amended case schedule to extend all 13 deadlines accordingly. The Court directs the parties to comply with all discovery obligations 14 under the federal and local rules and consistent with this Court’s August 28, 2019 Order. Dkt. 15 #86. 16 17 DATED this 5th day of November, 2019. 18 A

19 Robert S. Lasnik 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28