Dodo International Inc v. Parker

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 DODO INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., CASE NO. C20-1116-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 RICHARD PARKER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to extend deadlines (Dkt. No. 16 93). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby 17 DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 Plaintiffs’ counsel asks the Court to extend all deadlines in the scheduling order, arguing 19 he is unable to complete discovery before the cut-off deadline because of high staff turnover at 20 his office. (Dkt. No. 93 at 4.) Defendants Paul Donion and Law Offices of Paul M. Donion 21 oppose, arguing Plaintiffs have exhibited “no diligence whatsoever” in conducting discovery. 22 (Dkt. No. 94 at 4.) 23 Parties are bound by the dates specified in the scheduling order. LCR 16(b)(6). Although 24 the schedule may be amended for good cause, “mere failure to complete discovery within the 25 time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or continuance.” Id. In determining 26 “good cause,” the Court primarily looks at the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. 1 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts he has diligently reached out to Defendants’ counsel, citing e- 3 mails sent within the last three weeks. (See Dkt. No. 96.) However, the Court issued a scheduling 4 order over seven months ago. (See Dkt. No. 88.) A few attempts to initiate correspondence with 5 Defendants just a month before the discovery cut-off hardly proves that Plaintiffs’ counsel was 6 diligent in seeking discovery. (See Dkt. No. 96.) Moreover, counsel’s argument that his office 7 has had high turnover does not excuse his apparent lack of personal action in this case. (Dkt. No. 8 93 at 3–4.) 9 Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to establish good cause 10 for modifying the case schedule. The motion to extend deadlines (Dkt. No. 93) is DENIED. 11 DATED this 21st day of October 2022. A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26