Hsu v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Honorable Thomas S. Zilly 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 TSUNG H HSU, 9 C20-88 TSZ Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING 11 v. STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT 12 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE EXPERT DEPOSITIONS INSURANCE COMPANY, AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF 13 Defendant. 14 15 On this day came before the Court the parties’ Stipulated Motion to conduct expert 16 depositions after the current discovery cutoff. In support of their motion, the parties state that 17 they wish to conduct expert depositions after the discovery cutoff so that they can incorporate 18 their experts’ disclosures into those depositions. 19 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. 20 R.Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also LCR 16(b)(5) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 21 and with the judge’s consent.”). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad 22 discretion of the district court. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 23 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the 24 party seeking the amendment. If a party has acted diligently yet cannot reasonably meet 25 scheduling dates or deadlines, a court may allow modification of the schedule. 26 27 1 The Court finds that good cause exists to grant leave for the parties to conduct expert 2 depositions after the discovery cutoff. The parties have resolved all discovery matters thus far 3 by agreement and without intervention of the Court, with further agreement now made between 4 the parties as to deposition cost responsibility and accommodation for holding depositions 5 remotely. Permitting the parties to conduct expert depositions after exchanging expert 6 disclosures will allow them to incorporate expert disclosures into expert depositions. This 7 serves the interests of justice and efficiency articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 and LCR 1(a), and 8 safeguards the Court’s trial schedule by keeping the other case scheduling dates in place. 9 Accordingly, after careful consideration of the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion 10 for good cause shown. 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the case schedule shall be amended as follows: 12 13 DATED this 8th day of January, 2021. 14 A ________________________________ 15 Thomas S. Zilly 16 United States District Judge 17 DATED this 7th day of January, 2021. 18 19 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Roy Law Group Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 By s/ Sarah Cox By s/ Jesse Cowell Sarah E. Cox, WSBA #46703 Jesse Cowell, WSBA #50725 22 James Howard, WSBA #37259 1000 SW Broadway, Ste. 900 920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Portland, OR 97205 23 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 (503)206-4313 24 (206)622-3150 jesse@roylawgroup.com (206)757-7700 25 sarahcox@dwt.com jameshoward@dwt.com 26 27