Hoffman v. Transworld Systems Incorporated

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided May 3, 2022·No. 2:18-cv-01132·Unknown

Opinion

1 Hon. Thomas S. Zilly 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 ESTHER HOFFMAN; et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1132-TSZ 11 PLAINTIFFS, 12 STIPULATED MOTION AND v. ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES 13 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE 14 INCORPORATION; et. al., DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND EXPERT WITNESS MOTIONS 15 DEFENDANTS. 16 17 18 I. STIPULATED MOTION 19 20 1. Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and LCR 10(g), Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby 21 respectfully submit this stipulated motion for entry of an order (a) continuing the deadlines for the 22 parties to file and brief dispositive motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert 23 witnesses, and (b) allowing the parties to conduct certain depositions after the close of discovery 24 as described below. 25 26 2. Plaintiffs have two pending motions seeking discovery from TSI. One was noted 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER LOCKE LORD LLP 28 CONTINUING DEADLINES 200 VESEY STREET, 20TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281 18-CV-1132-TSZ (212)415-8600 1 for April 4, 2022. (Dkt. 271) and the other for April 22, 2022 (Dkt. 276) (together, the “Discovery 2 Motions”). Once the Court decides the pending Discovery Motions, and if either of the Motions 3 are granted and additional discovery is ordered, additional time may be needed thereafter to 4 complete this discovery. 5 6 3. On March 13, 2022, the parties stipulated, and on March 14, 2022, the Court 7 ordered, that in light of the Discovery Motions, “[w]ithin five (5) days of the Court’s decision on 8 any motion concerning the scope of [TSI’s] Designated Representative’s required testimony, the 9 parties shall meet and confer and attempt to agree on new filing deadline and noting dates for TSI’s 10 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 161) and responses thereto on a schedule similar to the 11 12 current briefing schedule and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 232) and responses 13 thereto on a schedule similar to the current briefing schedule ….” Dkt. 268, ¶ 9. 14 4. The operative Order Setting Trial and Related Dates (Dkt. 146) set a May 5, 2022 15 deadline for dispositive motions to be filed and May 12, 2022 deadline for all motions related to 16 expert witnesses to be filed. 17 18 5. Because additional motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert 19 witnesses cannot be briefed and noted by most parties until after depositions of expert witnesses 20 are completed, and because depositions of expert witnesses cannot be taken until after the Court 21 decides the pending Discovery Motions (see Dkt. 268), the parties have met and conferred and 22 believe that it is in their best interest, and respectfully submit that it is in the Court’s interest as 23 24 well, to stay the current deadlines for filing dispositive motions (currently May 5) and motions 25 related to expert witnesses (currently May 12) until further order of the Court. This will allow the 26 Court sufficient time to decide the pending Discovery Motions before motions for summary 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER LOCKE LORD LLP 28 CONTINUING DEADLINES 200 VESEY STREET, 20TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281 18-CV-1132-TSZ (212)415-8600 1 judgment and motions related to expert witnesses are required to be briefed and noted. The parties 2 also request leave to depose the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designees of two non-parties, Boston 3 Portfolio Advisers, Inc. (“BPA”) and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency 4 (“PHEAA”). BPA was slow in responding to Plaintiffs’ Subpoena for records and the parties agree 5 6 that good cause exists to depose both BPA and PHEAA. 7 6. “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met 8 despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 9 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes). A 10 schedule may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LCR 16(b)(5). When 11 12 determining whether a party has demonstrated good cause, the court “primarily considers the 13 diligence of the part[ies] seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Here, the parties 14 have been diligent in working towards completing discovery before the expiration of the 15 Scheduling Order’s deadline of April 18, 2022. Even though this case is a putative class action 16 with six named Plaintiffs, eight defendants, and numerous complicated and sensitive discovery 17 18 issues, the parties have successfully cooperated and significantly completed fact and class 19 discovery, and have served expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The parties are not 20 requesting additional time to complete discovery at this time except for additional time to take the 21 depositions of (1) the parties’ designated expert witnesses; (2) the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 22 designated representative of subpoenaed non-party Boston Portfolio Advisers, Inc.; and (3) the 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designated representative of non-party Pennsylvania Higher Education 25 Assistance Agency. 26 7. The parties are requesting a continuance because of the uncertainty created by the 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER LOCKE LORD LLP 28 CONTINUING DEADLINES 200 VESEY STREET, 20TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281 18-CV-1132-TSZ (212)415-8600 1 pending Discovery Motions. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that it is necessary for the Discovery 2 Motions to be resolved and additional discovery directed by the Court’s decisions on the Discovery 3 Motions, if any, be completed in order to finish briefing for most dispositive motions, and motions 4 related to expert witnesses. The parties each believe that it is appropriate and that there is good 5 6 cause to continue these deadlines until after resolution of the Discovery Motions. 7 8. The parties therefore stipulate and agree, and respectfully request, that the current 8 deadlines for filing dispositive motions and motions related to expert witnesses be stayed until 9 further order of the Court. Within five (5) days of the Court’s decision on the Discovery Motions, 10 the parties will meet and confer and attempt to agree on new filing and noting deadlines for these 11 12 motions and, if necessary, a comprehensive new schedule that accounts for the continued deadlines 13 to file these motions, as well as the continued noting dates for TSI’s Motion for Summary 14 Judgment (Dkt. 161) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 232), which were 15 previously stayed until further order by the Court’s March 14, 2022 Order (Dkt. 268). If the parties 16 cannot agree, the parties shall submit their proposals for a revised schedule to the Court within 17 18 eight (8) days of the Court’s decision on the Discovery Motions. 19 9. The next deadline in the current Scheduling Order which the parties are requesting 20 to continue is the May 5, 2022 deadline for filing of dispositive motions. The Scheduling Order 21 currently sets a trial date of October 3, 2022.

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

Hoffman v. Transworld Systems Incorporated, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Hoffman v. Transworld Systems Incorporated (Hoffman v. Transworld Systems Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related