McKenna v. Home Depot USA Inc

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedSeptember 24, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-05038
StatusUnknown

This text of McKenna v. Home Depot USA Inc (McKenna v. Home Depot USA Inc) 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
McKenna v. Home Depot USA Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Opinion

4 THE HONORABLE JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN 5

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION 9

10 MICHAEL J McKENNA and DARLA M. McKENNA, husband and wife, 11 CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-05038-MJP Plaintiffs, 12 STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE v. TRIAL DATE AND AMEND THE CASE 13 SCHEDULE HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,INC., a foreign profit 14 corporation, NOTING ON MOTION CALENDAR: SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 15 Defendants.

16 [CLERKS’ ACTION REQUIRED] 17 I. STIPULATED MOTION 18 Pursuant to LR 7(d)(2), Plaintiffs Michael J. McKenna and Darla M. McKenna 19 20 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), by 21 and through their respective counsel of record, hereby move this Court to continue the trial date 22 in the above-captioned matter for approximately three months, and to amend the order setting 23 pretrial deadlines in accordance with the continued trial date. There remains outstanding 24 discovery to conduct in this matter, which cannot be completed by the November 26, 2021 25 discovery completion deadline. This is primarily due to the unexpected circumstances 26 STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND HOLT WOODS & SCISCIANI LLP AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 701 PIKE STREET, SUITE 2200 (CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-05038-MJP)- Page 1 1 surrounding COVID-19 and the associated delay with obtaining medical records. Therefore, a 2 continuance is required to allow for the completion of necessary discovery and to engage in 3 meaningful alternative dispute resolution. 4 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5 Plaintiffs brought this action for damages arising out of a personal injury at a Home Depot 6 store. The Order Setting Trial Date & Related Dates was signed on March 30, 2021, setting the 7 8 trial date for April 25, 2022 and the discovery cutoff for November 26, 2021.1 There have been 9 no previous motions for continuance of the trial of this matter. 10 The parties encountered a circumstance in discovery that thwarted their efforts to 11 complete discovery by the November 26, 2021 deadline. Since the Court issued the Order 12 Setting Trial Date & Related Dates on March 30, 2021, Mr. McKenna underwent a second 13 surgery to remove hardware that had been left in his shoulder following the first surgery. This 14 surgery took place on April 14, 2021. Thus, the medical records for such procedure were only 15 16 recently obtained by the parties. Further, on September 9, 2021, the parties received an invoice 17 from U.S. Legal for collection of X-ray films from Capital Medical Center that the parties are 18 still expecting. Generally once an invoice is received the records can be expected within the 19 next 30 days. These records were requested on June 10, 2021. 20 Likewise, even though Mr. McKenna executed stipulations in February 2021 to obtain 21 his employment records, the parties are still waiting to obtain the vast majority of these records. 22 23 Per the case schedule, the parties are required to disclose their expert opinions by 24 September 27, 2021. This is not feasable considering that not all of the medical and employment 25

26 1 Dkt. at 10. STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND HOLT WOODS & SCISCIANI LLP AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 701 PIKE STREET, SUITE 2200 (CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-05038-MJP)- Page 2 1 records have been received. In order for both parties’ experts to render opinions regarding Mr. 2 McKenna’s condition, they need to be able to review all of the medical records, including X- 3 rays, which we have yet to receive. Once the parties’ experts have provided medical opinions, 4 a vocational rehabilation specialist and/or economist will rely upon such opinions to formulate 5 their own opinions regarding any kind of potential economoc loss. Given the information that 6 is outstanding, the parties request a short continuance to ensure all necessary records are obtained 7 8 prior to depositions, expert discovery and alternative dispute resolution. 9 Furthermore, the parties have agreed to participate in mediation once the outstanding 10 records are received. Each party will likely retain several experts and the parties are making a 11 good faith effort to resolve the claims at mediation without incurring significant expenses of 12 conducting Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 examinations and expenses for the experts’ time for numerous 13 depositions. Regardless of mediation, the parties will be unable to comply with the Court’s order 14 regarding expert dislcosures, which cannot be completed prior to the September 27, 2021 15 16 deadline. It follows that the parties will also be unable to complete discovery associated with 17 the experts opinions or conduct party depositions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 examinations and expert 18 depositions, in compliance with the current case schedule’s discovery deadline of November 26, 19 2021. 20 III. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON 21 This motion relies upon the pleadings and other filings of record. 22 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND HOLT WOODS & SCISCIANI LLP AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 701 PIKE STREET, SUITE 2200 (CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-05038-MJP)- Page 3 1 IV. POINTS AND AUTHORITY 2 The decision to grant or deny a requested continuance lies with the broad discretion of 3 the district court, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.2 The 4 relevant factors for appellate review of an order denying a motion for continuance are: (1) 5 diligent efforts by party(ies) requesting continuance; (2) usefulness of the continuance requested; 6 (3) inconvenience of continuance to other party(ies); and (4) prejudice to requesting party caused 7 8 by denial of the requested continuance.3 Here, all the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting 9 the requested continuance. 10 First, both Plaintiffs and Defendant have been diligent in their efforts to complete 11 discovery in this matter. Stipulations authorizing collection of medical and employment records 12 were exectuted on February 17, 2021 and were processed shortly thereafter. At this time, the 13 parties are waiting on the record retrival company as well as the individual facilities, who are 14 extremely backlogged, to obtain the necessary employment and medical records. Second, the 15 16 short continuance requested is necesasry as the deadline to provide expert opinions is September 17 27 and the parties have yet to receive all meaningful records that would allow an expert to render 18 a complete opinion. The parties simply need more time to allow their experts to exchange 19 information prior to engaging in additional discovery, which cannot occur unless there is a short 20 continuance. A resolution of this case is dependent upon the receipt of complete medical and 21 employment records and the parties require additional time to obtain the records prior to 22 23 engaging in depositions, mediation and a potential Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 examination should 24 25 2 United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358, amended, 764 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 3 Flynt, 756 F.2d 1359-62. STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND HOLT WOODS & SCISCIANI LLP AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 701 PIKE STREET, SUITE 2200 (CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-05038-MJP)- Page 4 1 mediation be unsuccessful. Third, there is no inconvenience to the parties as they have stipulated 2 to such continuance. Finally, the parties would be severely prejudiced if they were not able to 3 provide their respective experts all the essential information to formulate their opinions and 4 conduct a potential Fed. R. Civ. P.

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

Related

United States v. Larry Flynt
756 F.2d 1352 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McKenna v. Home Depot USA Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenna-v-home-depot-usa-inc-wawd-2021.