Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company

W.D. Washington

Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company

DecidedFebruary 7, 2024

Docket3:22-cv-05728

StatusUnknown

This text of Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company (Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company) 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

Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 NO. 22-cv-5728 ARCHELINO T. PALPALLATOC, 8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFE’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL 9 v. 10 THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, Archelino Palpallatoc, brought this employment discrimination action against his 14 ||employer, The Boeing Company, alleging violations of the Washington Law Against 15 || Discrimination (““WLAD”). Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 16 ||Supplementation, ECF No. 65, and Plaintiff’s FRCP 56(d)! Motion, ECF No. 69. Having 17 ||reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs motion as untimely, and 18 || accordingly, Plaintiff’s 56(d) motion is moot. 19 On January 12, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting trial and related dates, which 20 || included a deadline for the completion of discovery by August 30, 2023. ECF No. 25. By multiple 21 || stipulated motions, the Court granted extensions to the discovery deadline, the most recent of which 22 23 Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 9A || ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 25 || -!

1 extended the discovery deadline to December 15, 2023, with a limited extension to January 10, 2 2024 for one further witness deposition. See ECF No. 50. No further requests for extension have 3 been filed. 4 According to the Court’s Standing Order, ECF No. 11, “[d]iscovery disputes shall be raised 5 in a timely manner so as to allow discovery to be completed within the discovery deadline. The 6 failure to do so may waive a party’s ability to challenge the discovery behavior.” Further, this 7 Court’s Local Civil Rule 16 requires any motion to compel discovery to be filed and served on or 8 before the discovery deadline. The parties did not raise their discovery dispute to the Court until 9 January 18, 2024, and upon reviewing the parties’ subsequent filings, it is apparent that the dispute 10 arose prior to the end of discovery. “[W]hen parties delay discovery for any reason, they do so at 11 their peril. Rule 29 provides the procedure for parties to cooperatively complete discovery after a

12 court-ordered cutoff, but only by stipulated order.” Wyles v. Sussman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 751, 756 13 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Plaintiff’s discovery motion is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on 14 Defendants’ summary judgment motion is moot. 15 DATED this 7th day of February 2023. 16 A 17 18 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23

24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

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

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 NO. 22-cv-5728 ARCHELINO T. PALPALLATOC, 8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFE’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL 9 v. 10 THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, Archelino Palpallatoc, brought this employment discrimination action against his 14 ||employer, The Boeing Company, alleging violations of the Washington Law Against 15 || Discrimination (““WLAD”). Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 16 ||Supplementation, ECF No. 65, and Plaintiff’s FRCP 56(d)! Motion, ECF No. 69. Having 17 ||reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs motion as untimely, and 18 || accordingly, Plaintiff’s 56(d) motion is moot. 19 On January 12, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting trial and related dates, which 20 || included a deadline for the completion of discovery by August 30, 2023. ECF No. 25. By multiple 21 || stipulated motions, the Court granted extensions to the discovery deadline, the most recent of which 22 23 Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 9A || ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 25 || -!

1 extended the discovery deadline to December 15, 2023, with a limited extension to January 10, 2 2024 for one further witness deposition. See ECF No. 50. No further requests for extension have 3 been filed. 4 According to the Court’s Standing Order, ECF No. 11, “[d]iscovery disputes shall be raised 5 in a timely manner so as to allow discovery to be completed within the discovery deadline. The 6 failure to do so may waive a party’s ability to challenge the discovery behavior.” Further, this 7 Court’s Local Civil Rule 16 requires any motion to compel discovery to be filed and served on or 8 before the discovery deadline. The parties did not raise their discovery dispute to the Court until 9 January 18, 2024, and upon reviewing the parties’ subsequent filings, it is apparent that the dispute 10 arose prior to the end of discovery. “[W]hen parties delay discovery for any reason, they do so at 11 their peril. Rule 29 provides the procedure for parties to cooperatively complete discovery after a

12 court-ordered cutoff, but only by stipulated order.” Wyles v. Sussman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 751, 756 13 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Plaintiff’s discovery motion is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on 14 Defendants’ summary judgment motion is moot. 15 DATED this 7th day of February 2023. 16 A 17 18 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23

24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palpallatoc-v-the-boeing-company-wawd-2024.