Fair v. King County

Opinion

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE EMANUEL D. FAIR, NO. 21-cv-01706-JHC Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT V. DISCLOSURE DEADLINE KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the NOTING DATE: February 27, 2024 State of Washington: et al., Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Civil Rule 16(b)(6), all parties in this action jointly move the Court for entry of an order extending the expert disclosure deadline by two weeks as follows: " Proposed New Dat Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP March 4, 2024 March 18, 2024 26(a)(2 The Parties are in agreement that no other modifications to the case schedule are needed as result of this proposed scheduling adjustment. “The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court,” and the Court may do so on a showing of good cause. White v. Ethicon, Inc., No. C20- ll osBHS, 2022 WL 596407, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2022): Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4): see also STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE - 1

LCR16(b)(6). Good cause exists where the “schedule . . . cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the parties seeking the extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). The rule is intended to “accomplish effective pretrial procedures and to avoid

wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.” LCR 16(b)(4). Here, good cause exists because although the Parties worked diligently to complete all witness depositions ahead of the expert disclosure deadline, and those depositions have been completed, the Parties and their experts are still waiting to receive some of the deposition transcripts. Additionally, despite the Parties’ diligence communicating with each other regarding remaining discovery requests, some documents have yet to be produced. These documents are expected to arrive within the new proposed deadline in time for expert analysis. In sum, good cause exists, no other deadlines need be adjusted, and this requested extension will “accomplish effective pretrial procedures,” and ensure the efficiency of trial, which will, in turn, “avoid wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.” LCR 16(b)(4).

DATED this 27th day of February, 2024.

By:/s/Corinne Sebren By:/s/Salim D. Lewis Corinne Sebren, WSBA #58777 Salim D. Lewis, WSBA #52660 Ryan Dreveskracht, WSBA #42593 Robert L. Christie, WSBA #10895 Rachel Tobias, WSBA #34111 Attorneys for City of Redmond & Brian Coates Attorneys for Plaintiff Emanuel Fair Email: bob@christielawgroup.com Email: ryan@galandabroadman.com salim@christielawgroup.com corinne@galandabroadman.com rtobias@galandabroadman.com

King County Prosecuting Attorney By: /s/ Karissa Taylor Carla B. Carlstrom, WSBA #27521 Karissa Taylor, WSBA #31563 Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys Attorneys for Defendant King County Email: carla.carlstrom@kingcounty.gov Karissa.taylor@kingcounty.gov PURSUANT to the Stipulation above, the Court hereby orders that the identified Disclosure of Expert Testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2) deadline be reset as agreed by the Parties, sets the new deadline to March 18, 2024. DATED this 27th day of February, 2024.

Chur C]ok A. John H. Chun United States District Judge 1] aune MADUINE 4 ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT