Santistevan-Sullivan v. TransDigm Group Incorporated

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00186
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 PHYLLIS SANTISTEVAN-SULLIVAN, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00186-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 13 TRANSDIGM GROUP INCORPORATED AND CASE SCHEDULE 14 et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Continuance of Trial Date and 18 Case Schedule. Dkt. No. 49. Having reviewed the relevant briefing and being fully advised on 19 the issues, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 20 The Court may modify scheduling orders for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In 21 considering a continuance, a court considers: “(1) counsel’s diligence in preparing his defense 22 prior to the trial date; (2) whether the continuance would satisfy the defendant’s needs; (3) the 23 inconvenience a continuance would cause the court and the [other party]; and (4) the extent to 24 1 which the defendant would suffer harm if the continuance was denied.” United States v. Wilke, 2 2020 WL 92005, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 2020) (citing United States v. Zamora-Hernandez, 3 222 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000)) (granting motion to continue trial). Defendants have 4 produced thousands of pages of documents and state that there are still many documents to

5 review and prepare for production. Dkt. No. 49 at 2. While Defendants anticipate completing 6 document production in March or April 2024 (id. at 3), expert reports must be disclosed by May 7 3, 2024 (Dkt. No. 25). The Court finds that Defendants have been diligent in preparing their 8 defense, the continuance would satisfy Defendants’ needs, and Defendants will be harmed in 9 their ability to defend the case thoroughly if the continuance is not granted. While Plaintiff states 10 she has provided thorough discovery, she does not state what harm she would suffer if the 11 continuance is granted. Dkt. No. 50 at 1. 12 Accordingly, the Court FINDS good cause to modify the scheduling order in this case and 13 ORDERS the following pretrial schedule: 14 Event Date Jury Trial set for 9 a.m. on July 7, 2025 15 Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2) December 9, 2024 due 16 Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony under FRCP January 8, 2025 26(a)(2) due 17 All motions related to discovery must be filed by January 8, 2025 Discovery completed by February 7, 2025 18 All dispositive motions and motions challenging expert witness testimony must be filed by this date (see LCR March 6, 2025 19 7(d)) Settlement Conference, if mediation has been requested 20 April 8, 2025 by the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than 21 Mediation per LCR 39.1, if requested by the parties, May 8, 2025 held no later than 22 All motions in limine must be filed June 2, 2025 Agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due June 16, 2025 23 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and proposed June 20, 2025 jury instructions due by this date. Counsel are to confer 24 ] and indicate with their submissions which exhibits are agreed to. 2 eee ee 3 4 The Parties are directed to follow all other dates as specified in the Court’s Order Setting

; Jury Trial Dates and Related Dates, Dkt. No. 25, and the Local Civil Rules.

‘ Dated this 3rd day of April 2024.

g ana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24