O'Neal v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DEBRA S. O’NEAL, CASE NO. C23-0232-KKE 8

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND T DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE EXPERT 10 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY TESTIMONY COMPANY, 11

Defendant. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s 14 (“State Farm”) motion to continue the deadline to challenge expert witness testimony. Dkt. No. 15 80. Plaintiff Debra S. O’Neal objects to continuing the deadline, arguing State Farm was not 16 diligent and she would be prejudiced by extending the deadline because such motions practice 17 would distract from trial preparation. Dkt. No. 86. The briefing is complete1 and the matter is 18 ripe for the Court’s consideration. 19 Both parties make their arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and 20 Local Civil Rule 16(b)(6), but because State Farm seeks to extend one deadline, not the case 21 schedule, and the deadline has already expired, the motion is more properly considered under Rule 22 1 State Farm is correct that O’Neal’s response is untimely. Dkt. No. 88 at 1 (explaining the response was due August 23 10th under Local Rule 7(d)(2), but was filed August 14th). Because State Farm also erred by incorrectly noting their motion, the Court will not strike O’Neal’s untimely response. See Dkt. No. 80 (noting motion for eight days after filing, instead of at least 14 days as required by Local Rule 7(d)(2)). 24 1 6(b)(1)(B) which allows the Court to extend a deadline for good cause “if the party failed to act 2 because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). To determine excusable neglect under 3 Rule 6, the court considers

4 (1) the danger of prejudice to the other party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, 5 including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 6 Kaiser v. Herrington, No. 3:22-CV-05944-TL-GJL, 2023 WL 3383002, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 7 11, 2023) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 8 (1993)). Excusable neglect “covers cases of negligence, carelessness, and inadvertent mistake.” 9 Id. (quoting Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000)). The test “is at 10 bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s 11 omission.” Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. 12 Here, the deadline to challenge expert testimony was June 28, 2024 (Dkt. No. 57) and was 13 well known to the parties. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 72 (stipulating to extend the expert deposition 14 deadlines until July 2024, while acknowledging “[t]he deadline to file dispositive motions and 15 expert challenges is June 28, 2024”). State Farm should have requested an extension of the 16 deadline to challenge expert testimony as part of the stipulation extending the time in which to 17 take expert depositions, but it did not. State Farm has not shown the reason for delay was outside 18 its control or otherwise reasonable. 19 While the “reason for delay” factor does not favor granting State Farm’s extension, the 20 remaining factors do, and outweigh State Farm’s lack of excuse for its delay. Starting with the 21 first factor, O’Neal explains she will suffer prejudice if locked in motions practice before trial. 22 Dkt. No. 86 at 5. The Court has addressed these concerns by expediting the briefing schedule for 23 any potential motions and reducing the applicable page limits. Further, the Court is granting both 24 1 parties the ability to file a motion to challenge the other party’s expert. These limitations will also 2 ensure any delay or impact on other deadlines, the second factor, is minimal. As to the last factor, 3 O’Neal does not allege State Farm is acting in bad faith.

4 The Court also finds that granting this extension with the limitations provided will serve 5 the parties and the Court by streamlining evidentiary issues for trial. See Uhlarik v. Nat’l R.R. 6 Passenger Corp., No. C18-5788 BHS, 2022 WL 789492, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2022) 7 (granting a motion to extend the deadline to challenge expert testimony because “Amtrak’s failure 8 to timely file a Daubert motion would not make the testimony admissible if it is not”); see McClure 9 v. Country Life Ins. Co., 795 F. App’x 548, 549 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming that McClure’s 10 challenge to the expert’s testimony was untimely, district courts still must perform a gatekeeping 11 role with respect to expert testimony.” (cleaned up)). 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART State Farm’s motion to continue the deadline

13 to challenge expert testimony. Dkt. No. 80. But the Court DENIES State Farm’s requested 14 briefing timeline and schedule. Id. 15 Either party may file a motion challenging the other party’s expert testimony by August 16 30, 2024. Due to the need for an expedited briefing schedule to accommodate other pretrial 17 deadlines, any motion shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7(d)(3). The motion shall be 18 noted for no later than 21 days after filing and the length of the briefs is limited as provided in 19 Local Rule 7(e)(4). 20 Dated this 19th day of August, 2024. 21 A 22 Kymberly K. Evanson 23 United States District Judge