Burrows v. 3M Company

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 GRACE BURROWS, et al., Case No. C19-1649RSL 9

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER EXTENDING TRIAL 11 v. DATE

12 3M COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to Extend Trial Date and 16 Related Dates” (Dkt. # 131) and “Motion to Expedite” (Dkt. # 132). The Court, having reviewed 17 the submissions of the parties and the remainder of the record, denies defendant’s motion to 18 expedite and grants defendant’s motion to continue the trial date for the reasons stated herein. 19 I. Motion to Expedite 20 As the Court previously noted in a recent minute order (Dkt. # 135), the Court considers 21 defendant’s motion to extend the trial date pursuant to the schedule set forth in LCR 7(d)(2). 22 Defendant relies on LCR 7(j) to support its contention that the Court should hear its motion on 23 an expedited basis. Dkt. # 132 at 2. However, LCR 7(j) states 24 A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the 25 motion prior to the deadline. Parties should not assume that the motion will 26 be granted and must comply with the existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise. 27 If a true, unforeseen emergency exists that prevents a party from meeting a 28 deadline, and the emergency arose too late to file a motion for relief from 1 regarding an extension, and file a stipulation and proposed order with the court. Alternatively, the parties may use the procedure for telephonic 2 motions in LCR 7(i). It is expected that if a true emergency exists, the 3 parties will stipulate to an extension. 4 The Rule does not, as defendant claims, provide an avenue for the Court to “hear motions on an 5 emergency basis.” Dkt. # 132 at 2. It only provides that the parties may – after meeting and 6 conferring – file a stipulation and a proposed order granting relief from a deadline, or that the 7 parties may request that the motion be heard by telephone without the filing of motion papers. 8 Indeed, the Local Rules specifically state that “[m]otions to shorten time have been abolished.” 9 LCR 6(b). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to expedite (Dkt. # 132) is DENIED. 10 II. Motion to Continue Trial 11 Defendant asks the Court to set over the trial date and related deadlines for a period of at 12 least sixty (60) days. Dkt. # 131 at 1. Trial is currently set for April 3, 2023. Dkt. # 94. The 13 Court recently granted the parties’ stipulated motion to set over pretrial deadlines, and the 14 parties’ Motions in Limine are now due by March 6, 2023 and the Pretrial Order deadline is now 15 March 22, 2023. Dkt. # 134. The parties are also facing deadlines related to their impending 16 settlement conference, set for March 13, 2023. Dkt. # 131 at 2. The parties must exchange 17 settlement briefs on March 8, 2023, and the parties’ confidential settlement memoranda is due 18 on March 10, 2023. Id. Finally, plaintiffs scheduled their second 30(b)(6) deposition for 19 February 27, 2023. Id. 20 In determining whether to grant the requested continuance, the Court looks to Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under Rule 16, district courts must enter scheduling orders in 22 actions to “limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file 23 motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). In addition, scheduling orders may “set dates for pretrial 24 conferences and for trial.” Id. 16(b)(3)(B)(vi). A scheduling order “controls the course of the 25 action unless the court modifies it.” Id. 16(d). Once a scheduling order has been filed, the 26 “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Id. 16(b)(4). 27 “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 28 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If the 1 moving party fails to demonstrate diligence, “the inquiry should end.” Id. “Although the 2 existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 3 reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 4 seeking modification.” Id. Good cause may be found where the moving party shows (1) it 5 assisted the Court with creating a workable scheduling order; (2) that it is unable to comply with 6 the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the 7 scheduling order issued; and (3) that it was diligent in seeking a modification once it became 8 apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 9 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). The district court, in supervising the pretrial phase 10 of litigation and deciding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order, has “broad discretion.” C.F. ex 11 rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 The Court finds that defendant has been diligent in seeking this extension, and that it is 13 unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters not reasonably 14 foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued. Specifically, plaintiff’s second Rule 30(b)(6) 15 deposition and the upcoming settlement conference. The Court also finds that defendant was 16 diligent in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not comply with the 17 scheduling order. See Dkt. # 131 at 3. 18 The Court acknowledges plaintiffs’ argument that the trial date in this case has already 19 been delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic-related scheduling challenges, Dkt. # 138 at 1-2, and 20 is sympathetic to plaintiffs’ desire to move forward with the scheduled trial date. However, the 21 Court concludes that there is good cause for setting over the trial date, as doing so will permit 22 both parties to fully prepare for both the upcoming settlement conference and trial.1 23 24 25 1 While plaintiffs argue that a continuance will prejudice their ability to schedule testimony 26 (specifically, that of Carol Dobbins, whose “work in the hospitality industry would make it difficult if 27 not impossible to attend during the summer months”), Dkt. # 138 at 2, the Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the inquiry here centers on the moving party’s reasons for seeking the modification rather than 28 1 III. Conclusion 2 For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to extend the trial 3 date (Dkt. # 131) and DENIES defendant’s “Motion to Expedite” (Dkt. # 132). The new trial 4 date will be set for August 7, 2023. The Court will issue a new case management order 5 reflecting the new trial date and pretrial deadlines following this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED this 2nd day of March, 2023. 9 10 A

11 Robert S. Lasnik 12 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28