Hassan v. The Boeing Company

W.D. Washington

Hassan v. The Boeing Company

DecidedJanuary 3, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01345

StatusUnknown

This text of Hassan v. The Boeing Company (Hassan v. The Boeing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hassan v. The Boeing Company, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 HAYTHAMANI MOHAMED HASSAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01345-RSM

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DISCOVERY RELATED 12 v. MOTIONS

13 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Hassan’s “Motion to Extend Deadline for 17 Discovery Related Motions.” Dkt. #51. Plaintiff points out that certain discovery events will 18 occur after the Court’s deadline for the filing of discovery motions. Plaintiff requests that the 19 20 deadline for motions be extended until after discovery is completed. Id. 21 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion 23 of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 25 amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has acted diligently yet still cannot reasonably meet the 26 scheduling deadlines, the court may allow modification of the schedule. Id. “Mere failure to 1 complete discovery within the time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or 2 continuance.” LCR 16(b)(6). This rule will be “strictly enforced” in order to “accomplish 3 effective pretrial procedures and avoid wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.” 4 LCR 16(m). While prejudice to an opposing party may provide additional reasons for denying 5 the motion, it is not required under Rule 16(b). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 6 7 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The discovery motion deadline in the scheduling order is not unique to this case and is by 9 design. The Court has traditionally required the filing of discovery motions prior to the close of 10 discovery to allow for the resolution of discovery issues without disrupting subsequent deadlines 11 like the filing of dispositive motions. 12 Plaintiff’s Motion includes no specific discovery concern and fails to explain why he was 13 unable to conduct discovery earlier in this case. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate diligence or good 14 15 cause for the requested relief. 16 Accordingly, having reviewed the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court 17 hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Hassan’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Discovery 18 Related Motions, Dkt. #51, is DENIED. 19 20 DATED this 3rd day of January, 2025. 21 A 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 HAYTHAMANI MOHAMED HASSAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01345-RSM

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DISCOVERY RELATED 12 v. MOTIONS

13 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Hassan’s “Motion to Extend Deadline for 17 Discovery Related Motions.” Dkt. #51. Plaintiff points out that certain discovery events will 18 occur after the Court’s deadline for the filing of discovery motions. Plaintiff requests that the 19 20 deadline for motions be extended until after discovery is completed. Id. 21 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion 23 of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 25 amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has acted diligently yet still cannot reasonably meet the 26 scheduling deadlines, the court may allow modification of the schedule. Id. “Mere failure to 1 complete discovery within the time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or 2 continuance.” LCR 16(b)(6). This rule will be “strictly enforced” in order to “accomplish 3 effective pretrial procedures and avoid wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.” 4 LCR 16(m). While prejudice to an opposing party may provide additional reasons for denying 5 the motion, it is not required under Rule 16(b). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 6 7 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The discovery motion deadline in the scheduling order is not unique to this case and is by 9 design. The Court has traditionally required the filing of discovery motions prior to the close of 10 discovery to allow for the resolution of discovery issues without disrupting subsequent deadlines 11 like the filing of dispositive motions. 12 Plaintiff’s Motion includes no specific discovery concern and fails to explain why he was 13 unable to conduct discovery earlier in this case. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate diligence or good 14 15 cause for the requested relief. 16 Accordingly, having reviewed the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court 17 hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Hassan’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Discovery 18 Related Motions, Dkt. #51, is DENIED. 19 20 DATED this 3rd day of January, 2025. 21 A 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hassan v. The Boeing Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hassan-v-the-boeing-company-wawd-2025.