1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8
9 COMAIR LIMITED, No. 2:23-cv-00176-RSM
10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO REVISE CASE SCHEDULE 11 v.
12 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, 13 Defendant. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1), 7(j), 17 10(g), and 16(b)(6), Plaintiff Comair Limited (“Comair”) and Defendant The Boeing Company 18 (“Boeing”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move the Court for an order revising the case 19 schedule set forth in the Court’s January 27, 2025 Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Revise 20 Case Schedule (Dkt. No. 130). 21 The Parties have been meeting and conferring on remaining fact, expert, and third-party 22 discovery matters. The Parties are making progress on discovery. At this point, however, it is clear 23 that the Parties will not have sufficient time to conclude their discovery efforts before the April 24 18, 2025 discovery deadline. The Parties still have a number of depositions left to take, including 25 those of a Boeing expert and a Comair expert, and the parties are still producing documents. 26 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO 1 A modest case schedule extension is to the Court’s and Parties’ benefit to allow the Parties 2 to develop a more complete record and file fully informed dispositive and Daubert motions and 3 oppositions. The Parties believe that an additional two months beyond the existing schedule should 4 be sufficient to complete these remaining discovery tasks and allow for the Parties to file discovery 5 and dispositive motions. 6 Depending on how the Court rules on Boeing’s pending Motion for Issuance of Letters 7 Rogatory (Dkt. 149), these deadlines may need to be further revisited, but the Parties believe that 8 issue can be addressed in the event the Court grants the relief Boeing has requested. 9 The Parties are timely making this request more than two weeks before the current April 10 18, 2025 discovery deadline to ensure the Court has sufficient time to decide the motion. For these 11 reasons and those detailed below, good cause exists to revise the case schedule by extending it 12 approximately two months. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district 15 court.” James v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., No. C22-772-RSM, 2023 WL 5020403, at 16 *1 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2023) (Martinez, J.) (citation omitted). The Court may extend the case 17 schedule where good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LCR 16(b)(6). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 18 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson 19 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify 20 the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 21 extension.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). Local 22 Civil Rule 7(j) establishes that “[a] motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, 23 be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the 24 deadline.” 25 26 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 Good cause exists to modestly extend the remaining deadlines by two months. Since the 3 Court’s January 27, 2025 Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Revise Case Schedule (Dkt. No. 4 130), the Parties have taken nearly ten depositions, five of which were in South Africa and one 5 more of which was out-of-state. Both Parties have made several supplemental document 6 productions, and more document productions are forthcoming. Despite the Parties’ efforts, 7 however, the current case deadlines cannot reasonably be met without prejudice resulting. 8 The Parties are therefore jointly moving to extend the case schedule and neither alleges 9 that any prejudice would arise from the extension. See James, 2023 WL 5020403, at *1 (“Because 10 the request for a trial continuance appears unopposed, it will be GRANTED.”); Reed v. Kariko, 11 No. 3:20-CV-5580-BHS-DWC, 2021 WL 3563089, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2021) (granting 12 Defendants’ motion to amend pretrial scheduling order to provide all parties extra time to complete 13 discovery, file a motion to compel, and submit dispositive motions because, inter alia, an extension 14 would not prejudice Plaintiff, “[i]n fact, an extension at this stage would benefit Plaintiff, as he 15 will have the opportunity to review to review [sic] Defendants’ substantive discovery 16 responses . . . and still challenge those responses” and “Plaintiff may also engage in additional 17 discovery”). 18 Allowing the Parties to complete fact and expert discovery by extending the discovery 19 deadlines also will contribute to the efficient and just resolution of this case, by ensuring that 20 decision-making on any Daubert motions, dispositive motions, and—if necessary—at trial is 21 based on a full and complete record. See St. George v. Sequim Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-05372-RJB, 22 2018 WL 6518118, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2018) (“An extension of the remaining court 23 deadlines is appropriate to allow the parties to complete discovery and engage in further 24 discussions related to resolution.”). 25 Furthermore, the Parties are filing this motion well in advance of the upcoming case 26 deadlines, including for dispositive motions (April 7) and discovery motions (April 28). See LCR 1 7(j). Also, the motion is being filed well in advance of the current discovery completion date of 2 April 18, leaving sufficient time for the Court to rule on it. See LCR 7(d)(1) (“joint or unopposed 3 motions . . . shall be noted for consideration the day they are filed”); see generally Young v. Pena, 4 No. C18-1007JLR, 2019 WL 461161, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2019) (granting motion for relief 5 from a deadline in part because the motion was timely filed five days before the deadline). 6 The Parties’ timely motion, their efforts to meet the Court’s deadlines, and the lack of 7 prejudice on any party all point to good cause. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that 8 the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as follows: 9 10 Current Dates New Dates 11 JURY TRIAL DATE July 14, 2025 September 2, 2025 12 Length of Trial 5-14 days 5-14 days 13 Discovery completed by April 18, 2025 June 18, 2025 14 Deadline for filing motions related to April 28, 2025 June 30, 2025 discovery. Any such motions shall be noted 15 for consideration pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) 16 All dispositive motions must be filed by and April 7, 2025 June 9, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 17 the fourth Friday thereafter (See LCR 7(d)) 18 Mediation per LCR 39.1(c)(3), if requested by the parties, held no later than May 20, 2025 July 21, 2025 19 All motions in limine must be filed by and June 16, 2025 August 4, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 20 the THIRD Friday thereafter 21 Agreed pretrial order due June 10, 2025 July 28, 2025 22 Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court 23 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, June 30, 2025 August 18, 2025 jury instructions, neutral statement of the 24 case, and trial exhibits due 25 26 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request the Court revise the case schedule 3 as set forth above. 4 5 DATED: March 31, 2025
6 By: s/ Marc P. Miles By: s/ Michael Paisner
7 Hunter Ahern, WSBA No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8
9 COMAIR LIMITED, No. 2:23-cv-00176-RSM
10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO REVISE CASE SCHEDULE 11 v.
12 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, 13 Defendant. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1), 7(j), 17 10(g), and 16(b)(6), Plaintiff Comair Limited (“Comair”) and Defendant The Boeing Company 18 (“Boeing”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move the Court for an order revising the case 19 schedule set forth in the Court’s January 27, 2025 Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Revise 20 Case Schedule (Dkt. No. 130). 21 The Parties have been meeting and conferring on remaining fact, expert, and third-party 22 discovery matters. The Parties are making progress on discovery. At this point, however, it is clear 23 that the Parties will not have sufficient time to conclude their discovery efforts before the April 24 18, 2025 discovery deadline. The Parties still have a number of depositions left to take, including 25 those of a Boeing expert and a Comair expert, and the parties are still producing documents. 26 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO 1 A modest case schedule extension is to the Court’s and Parties’ benefit to allow the Parties 2 to develop a more complete record and file fully informed dispositive and Daubert motions and 3 oppositions. The Parties believe that an additional two months beyond the existing schedule should 4 be sufficient to complete these remaining discovery tasks and allow for the Parties to file discovery 5 and dispositive motions. 6 Depending on how the Court rules on Boeing’s pending Motion for Issuance of Letters 7 Rogatory (Dkt. 149), these deadlines may need to be further revisited, but the Parties believe that 8 issue can be addressed in the event the Court grants the relief Boeing has requested. 9 The Parties are timely making this request more than two weeks before the current April 10 18, 2025 discovery deadline to ensure the Court has sufficient time to decide the motion. For these 11 reasons and those detailed below, good cause exists to revise the case schedule by extending it 12 approximately two months. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district 15 court.” James v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., No. C22-772-RSM, 2023 WL 5020403, at 16 *1 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2023) (Martinez, J.) (citation omitted). The Court may extend the case 17 schedule where good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LCR 16(b)(6). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 18 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson 19 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify 20 the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 21 extension.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). Local 22 Civil Rule 7(j) establishes that “[a] motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, 23 be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the 24 deadline.” 25 26 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 Good cause exists to modestly extend the remaining deadlines by two months. Since the 3 Court’s January 27, 2025 Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Revise Case Schedule (Dkt. No. 4 130), the Parties have taken nearly ten depositions, five of which were in South Africa and one 5 more of which was out-of-state. Both Parties have made several supplemental document 6 productions, and more document productions are forthcoming. Despite the Parties’ efforts, 7 however, the current case deadlines cannot reasonably be met without prejudice resulting. 8 The Parties are therefore jointly moving to extend the case schedule and neither alleges 9 that any prejudice would arise from the extension. See James, 2023 WL 5020403, at *1 (“Because 10 the request for a trial continuance appears unopposed, it will be GRANTED.”); Reed v. Kariko, 11 No. 3:20-CV-5580-BHS-DWC, 2021 WL 3563089, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2021) (granting 12 Defendants’ motion to amend pretrial scheduling order to provide all parties extra time to complete 13 discovery, file a motion to compel, and submit dispositive motions because, inter alia, an extension 14 would not prejudice Plaintiff, “[i]n fact, an extension at this stage would benefit Plaintiff, as he 15 will have the opportunity to review to review [sic] Defendants’ substantive discovery 16 responses . . . and still challenge those responses” and “Plaintiff may also engage in additional 17 discovery”). 18 Allowing the Parties to complete fact and expert discovery by extending the discovery 19 deadlines also will contribute to the efficient and just resolution of this case, by ensuring that 20 decision-making on any Daubert motions, dispositive motions, and—if necessary—at trial is 21 based on a full and complete record. See St. George v. Sequim Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-05372-RJB, 22 2018 WL 6518118, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2018) (“An extension of the remaining court 23 deadlines is appropriate to allow the parties to complete discovery and engage in further 24 discussions related to resolution.”). 25 Furthermore, the Parties are filing this motion well in advance of the upcoming case 26 deadlines, including for dispositive motions (April 7) and discovery motions (April 28). See LCR 1 7(j). Also, the motion is being filed well in advance of the current discovery completion date of 2 April 18, leaving sufficient time for the Court to rule on it. See LCR 7(d)(1) (“joint or unopposed 3 motions . . . shall be noted for consideration the day they are filed”); see generally Young v. Pena, 4 No. C18-1007JLR, 2019 WL 461161, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2019) (granting motion for relief 5 from a deadline in part because the motion was timely filed five days before the deadline). 6 The Parties’ timely motion, their efforts to meet the Court’s deadlines, and the lack of 7 prejudice on any party all point to good cause. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that 8 the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as follows: 9 10 Current Dates New Dates 11 JURY TRIAL DATE July 14, 2025 September 2, 2025 12 Length of Trial 5-14 days 5-14 days 13 Discovery completed by April 18, 2025 June 18, 2025 14 Deadline for filing motions related to April 28, 2025 June 30, 2025 discovery. Any such motions shall be noted 15 for consideration pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) 16 All dispositive motions must be filed by and April 7, 2025 June 9, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 17 the fourth Friday thereafter (See LCR 7(d)) 18 Mediation per LCR 39.1(c)(3), if requested by the parties, held no later than May 20, 2025 July 21, 2025 19 All motions in limine must be filed by and June 16, 2025 August 4, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 20 the THIRD Friday thereafter 21 Agreed pretrial order due June 10, 2025 July 28, 2025 22 Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court 23 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, June 30, 2025 August 18, 2025 jury instructions, neutral statement of the 24 case, and trial exhibits due 25 26 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request the Court revise the case schedule 3 as set forth above. 4 5 DATED: March 31, 2025
6 By: s/ Marc P. Miles By: s/ Michael Paisner
7 Hunter Ahern, WSBA No. 54489 Michael Paisner, WSBA No. 48822 Shook, Hardy & Bacon Zachary E. Davison, WSBA No. 47873 8 701 5th Ave, Suite 6800 Perkins Coie LLP 9 Seattle, Washington 98104 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Telephone: (206) 344-7600 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 10 Facsimile: (206) 344-3113 Telephone: 206-359-8000 hahern@shb.com Fax: 206-359-9000 11 Email: mpaisner@perkinscoie.com
Marc P. Miles (admitted pro hac vice) 12 Attorneys for Defendant Kristy A. Schlesinger (admitted pro hac vice) The Boeing Company 13 5 Park Plaza Suite 1600 Irvine, California 92614 14 Telephone: (949) 475-1500 Facsimile: (949) 475-0016 15 mmiles@shb.com kschlesinger@shb.com 16
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 C omair Limited
21 22 23 24 25 26 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the foregoing Stipulation and a review of the Court’s schedule, the Court 3 hereby modifies the case schedule as set forth below: 4 5 Current Dates New Dates 6 JURY TRIAL DATE July 14, 2025 September 15, 2025 7 Length of Trial 5-14 days 5-14 days 8 Discovery completed by April 18, 2025 June 18, 2025 9 Deadline for filing motions related to April 28, 2025 June 30, 2025 discovery. Any such motions shall be noted 10 for consideration pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) 11 All dispositive motions must be filed by and April 7, 2025 June 9, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 12 the fourth Friday thereafter (See LCR 7(d)) 13 Mediation per LCR 39.1(c)(3), if requested by the parties, held no later than May 20, 2025 July 21, 2025 14 All motions in limine must be filed by and June 16, 2025 August 4, 2025 noted on the motion calendar no later than 15 the THIRD Friday thereafter 16 Agreed pretrial order due June 10, 2025 July 28, 2025 17 Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court 18 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, June 30, 2025 August 18, 2025 jury instructions, neutral statement of the 19 case, and trial exhibits due 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED this 1st day of April, 2025
22 A 23
24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25