Cooper v. Milliman Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00522
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DWAYNE COOPER, 11

Plaintiff, 12 Case No. 2:23-cv-00522-RAJ v. 13 ORDER

MILLIMAN, INC., 14 Defendant. 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Dwayne Cooper’s (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. 18 Cooper”) motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 23, of this Court’s order denying in part and 19 granting in part Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint, modify the scheduling order, 20 and extend all remaining deadlines. Dkt. # 21. In the order, this Court denied Plaintiff’s 21 request to join Evernorth Intelligence Solutions (“Evernorth”) as a defendant, but granted 22 a sixty (60) day extension to the case schedule to ensure that the parties would have 23 sufficient time to complete discovery prior to trial, given Plaintiff’s stated intention to 24 add a cause of action against Defendant Milliman, Inc. (“Milliman”) to his complaint. 25 Dkt. # 21 at 9. Milliman filed a response to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. Dkt. # 26 25. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the Local Rules for the Western 3 District of Washington. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Thus, “in the absence of a 4 showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority 5 which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 6 diligence,” such motions will ordinarily be denied. Id 7 Here, Plaintiff argues that this Court’s decision to deny Plaintiff leave to amend 8 the complaint relied heavily on information outside the pleadings. Dkt # 23 at 3. Plaintiff 9 argues that this Court wrongly relied upon Milliman’s improper arguments as to the 10 potential futility of amendment and the joining of Evernorth as a defendant. Id. Further, 11 Plaintiff argues, this Court’s reasoning should have at least led to the finding that 12 Evernorth could potentially be liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as a furnisher of 13 information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2, if not as a consumer reporting agency. Id. at 7. 14 Milliman opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that Plaintiff relies on non-binding 15 authority for its contention that Milliman cannot assert arguments regarding the futility of 16 joining Evernorth as a defendant. Further, regardless of Milliman’s ability to assert 17 futility arguments as to a third party, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint fails to 18 properly allege that Evernorth is a credit reporting agency and intends to provide 19 consumer reports to third parties, as required by Zabriskie v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 940 20 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 2019). Dkt. # 25 at 4. Finally, Milliman opposes Plaintiff’s 21 argument that the Evernorth should be joined under the theory that it is a data furnisher. 22 Id. at 5. 23 As this Court noted it in its order, at the time that Plaintiff filed his motion for 24 leave to amend the complaint and join Evernorth as a defendant, the August 30 deadline 25 to join parties had passed, although the deadline for amendment had not. Dkt. # 21 at 9. 26 This Court considered the relevant factors and ultimately decided that leave to join 27 another defendant was not warranted. Id. at 5-6 (analyzing the factors set forth in 1 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff 2 failed to act diligently to join Evernorth or seek an extension of the scheduling order as to 3 joinder after receiving discovery in early July 2023 that indicated that Milliman received 4 medical record information from Evernorth. Dkt. # 21 at 6. Given Plaintiff’s undue delay 5 in this regard and failure to adequately address the matter of futility of amendment when 6 the issue was presented to this Court, it is within this Court’s discretion to deny leave to 7 join Evernorth as a defendant. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also 8 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the 9 party seeking modification [of the scheduling order] was not diligent, the inquiry should 10 end and the motion should not be granted.”) (internal quotations omitted). 11 However, the Court remains inclined to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint, 12 considering that he sought leave prior to the expiration of the deadline. See Dkt. # 21 at 9 13 (noting that Plaintiff expressed intention to amend complaint to bring additional cause of 14 action against Milliman). Because Plaintiff’s motion identifies no new facts, legal 15 authority, or manifest error necessitating reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion for 16 reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. # 23. Plaintiff may file amended pleadings as to 17 current defendant Milliman only by April 22, 2024. All further dates in the case schedule 18 shall be adjusted accordingly. 19 20 DATED this 22nd day of March, 2024. A 21

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26 27