Levy v. Google LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01678
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 Case No. 2:23-cv-1678-BJR GARY LEVY, an individual, 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 9 DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES 10 GOOGLE LLC, a California company, 11 Defendant. 12

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 In October 2023, Plaintiff Gary Levy initiated in state court this employment discrimination 15 action against Defendant Google LLC (“Google”), alleging claims for retaliation and wrongful 16 termination. Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1. The following month, Google removed the action to this Court. 17 Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. 18 Currently before the Court is Levy’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and Related Pretrial 19 Deadlines, which seeks a continuance of approximately four months. Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 18; 20 Proposed Or., Dkt. No. 18-2. Having fully considered the materials and the relevant legal 21 authorities, the Court grants the motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 22 23 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL 24 DEADLINES 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION 2 A district court’s pretrial schedule may be modified “only for good cause and with the 3 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Whether to grant or deny a continuance is at the 4 discretion of the Court. Rios-Barrios v. I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1985). When 5 considering the propriety of a continuance, courts consider four factors: (1) the diligence of the 6 party seeking a continuance in preparing for trial; (2) the need for a continuance; (3) the 7 inconvenience to the opposing party, the witnesses, and the court; and (4) the hardship a denial of 8 a continuance would cause the defendant. United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666, 671 9 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 Levy contends that good cause exists for his proposed continuance because he has been 11 diligent in obtaining discovery and responding to discovery requests, but his wife has

12 unforeseeably fallen ill, making it difficult for him to schedule and prepare for depositions. Pl.’s 13 Mot. at 2-4. Google responds that good cause exists to extend the current trial, but not to the extent 14 requested by Levy. Def.’s Resp. at 1-2, 4-5, Dkt. No. 19. Google asserts that Levy has abruptly 15 canceled mediation twice, resulting in significant delays and wasted time. Id. at 2-3. Google also 16 contends that Levy has impeded Google’s ability to conduct discovery by making himself 17 unavailable for deposition until mid-to-late April, despite the current discovery deadline of March 18 2025. Id. at 3-4. Levy replies that Google has likewise failed to provide deposition dates for its 19 own witnesses, despite multiple requests. Pl.’s Reply at 1-2, Dkt. No. 21. 20 The Court is unimpressed by the parties’ finger-pointing and inability to complete discovery 21 in a timely manner. This action—which the parties agree does not present complex issues—has

22 been pending for well over a year. See Compl.; Joint Status Report at 2, Dkt. No. 11. Furthermore, 23 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL 24 DEADLINES 1 the Court previously granted a continuance of approximately six months to accommodate the 2 parties’ desire to proceed with mediation and limit discovery costs. Or. Granting Stip. Mot. to 3 Continue, Dkt. No. 15. The Court is sympathetic to the fact that Levy has been dealing with his 4 wife’s unforeseen illness. However, given how long this case has been pending, the parties’ lack of 5 meaningful progress is unacceptable. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that it would be 6 impractical to proceed with the current case deadlines and finds that good cause exists to grant the 7 Motion to Continue Trial Date and Related Pretrial Deadlines. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and Related Pretrial 10 Deadlines (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED. The existing case schedule is amended as follows: 11 Event Current Deadline Amended Deadline 12 Jury Trial Date September 22, 2025 February 2, 2026 Reports from expert 13 February 10, 2025 June 23, 2025 witness under FRCP 26(a)(2) 14 Discovery completed by March 14, 2025 July 25, 2025 15 All dispositive motions April 11, 2025 August 22, 2025 16 All motions in limine must August 4, 2025 December 15, 2025 be filed by 17 Joint Pretrial Statement August 11, 2025 December 22, 2025 18 Pretrial Conference August 26, 2025 January 6, 2026 19 Length of Jury Trial 5 days 5 days

20 In no event shall the parties toll these dates to pursue mediation. The Court will not entertain any 21 further requests for extensions. 22 23 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL 24 DEADLINES 1 DATED this 7th day of April 2025. 2 A

3 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL 24 DEADLINES