Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 ELLE NGUYEN, et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01990-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10

11 MERCER ISLAND BOYS BASKETBALL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE BOOSTER CLUB, 12

Defendant. 13

15 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time Pursuant 16 to CR 6(b) on Newly Discovered Material.” Dkt. # 27. Plaintiffs request an extension of 17 the discovery deadline on the grounds that they discovered new information relevant to 18 their defamation claim on October 3, 2024, and that they have had trouble scheduling the 19 depositions of three witnesses affiliated with defendant. Dkt. # 27 at 3.1 Having reviewed 20 the memoranda and declaration submitted by the parties, including plaintiffs’ supplemental 21 submission (Dkt. # 35), the Court finds as follows: 22 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), case management deadlines established by the 23 Court “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Rule 16 was 24 amended in 1983 to require scheduling orders that govern pre-trial as well as trial 25 1 Plaintiffs also mention that Ms. Nguyen encountered medical issues in December 2024 and February 2025 (Dkt. 26 # 31 at 3 and Dkt. # 27 at 3, respectively), but neither event seems to have resulted in a prolonged or substantial incapacity. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 1 procedures. The purpose of the change was to improve the efficiency of federal litigation: 2 leaving the parties to their own devices until shortly before trial was apparently costly and 3 resulted in undue delay. Under the 1983 amendment, once a case management schedule 4 issues, changes will be made only if the movant shows “good cause.” 5

6 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 7 schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met with the diligence of the party 8 seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) .... 9 10 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). See also 11 Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (where plaintiff 12 fails to “demonstrate diligence in complying with the dates set by the district court” good 13 cause is not shown). 14 The deadline for completing discovery was March 9, 2025. That date was set in 15 December 2024, a few weeks after plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint 16 to add a defamation claim against MIBBBC. Whatever new information plaintiffs 17 discovered in October 2024 cannot justify an extension of a discovery deadline that was 18 established two months later. Nor does the fact that plaintiffs have diligently pursued 19 discovery from three MIBBBC witnesses2 excuse their failure to serve discovery on other 20 third parties of whom they have been aware for almost six months. 21 Plaintiffs have not shown that they could not, with diligence, have met the 22 discovery deadline. The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment is April 8, 23 2025, and the extension plaintiffs are requesting would interfere with that date and the 24 remainder of the case management schedule. MIBBBC has been in litigation with 25

26 2 The Court has, as plaintiffs acknowledge in their “Notice on Discovery” (Dkt. # 37), granted a limited extension of the discovery deadline to complete the depositions of the three MIBBBC witnesses. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 1 plaintiffs for over a year and a half at this point and would be prejudiced by further delay 2 in the absence of good cause. Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of the discovery deadline 3 is therefore DENIED. 4 5 Dated this 2nd day of April, 2025. 6 A 7 Robert S. Lasnik 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY