Delashaw v. Seattle Times Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 10, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JOHNNY B. DELASHAW, JR., CASE NO. C18-0537JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART v. AND DENYING IN PART 12 STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, et 13 DEADLINES al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Johnny B. Delashaw, Jr. and Defendants Seattle Times 16 Company’s (“the Times”) and Charles Cobbs’ (collectively, “Defendants”) stipulation 17 motion to extend pretrial deadlines (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 146).) The parties do not request a 18 continuance of their August 31, 2020, trial date. (See generally id.; see also Am. Sched. 19 Order (Dkt. # 90) at 2.) Instead, the parties assert that the current pretrial schedule is 20 “unmanageable due to the unavailability of medical personnel who are necessary 21 // 22 1 witnesses and government orders prohibiting persons from congregating.” (Stip. Mot. at 2 1.) The parties propose the following amended deadlines:

3 Discovery motions May 21, 2020 4 Rebuttal disclosures May 4, 2020 5 Discovery deadline June 18, 2020 6 Dispositive and Daubert motions June 25, 2020 7 (Id.) 8 The court issues scheduling orders setting trial and related dates to provide a 9 reasonable schedule for the resolution of disputes. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the 11 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” for purposes of Rule 16 12 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order. 13 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Parties 14 must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of 15 the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). In part, 16 the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a 17 Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [the parties’] diligent efforts to 18 comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably 19 foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference . . . .” Id. at 608. 20 Further, the court’s scheduling order states that the dates are “firm” and that “[t]he court 21 will alter these dates only upon good cause shown.” (Am. Sched. Order at 3.) 22 1 The court finds that the parties have shown good cause to extend certain pretrial 2 deadlines. The parties agree that medical personnel who are necessary witnesses are at

3 least temporarily unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See Stip. Mot. at 1.) 4 However, certain deadlines the parties propose would leave the court and the parties 5 insufficient time to resolve certain pretrial matters before trial. Therefore, the court 6 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ stipulated motion, and amends the 7 pretrial schedule as follows: 8 All motions related to discovery must be filed by May 21, 2020

9 Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony under Fed. May 4, 2020 R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) 10 Discovery completed by June 4, 2020 11 All dispositive motions and motions challenging June 11, 2020 expert witness testimony must be filed by 12 All other case deadlines remain unchanged. 13 Dated this 10th day of April, 2020. 14 A 15 16 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22