South Lake Union Hotel LLC v. F&F Rogers Family Limited Partnership

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01868
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Hon. Kymberly K. Evanson

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 SOUTH LAKE UNION HOTEL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, No. 2:23-cv-01868 KKE 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND 11 ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES 12 F & F ROGERS FAMILY LIMITED 13 PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership; DOES 1–10, 14 Defendant. 15

16 I. RELIEF REQUESTED

17 COMES NOW the above captioned Parties jointly, by and through their

18 undersigned counsel, and respectfully move this Court to continue the pre-trial deadlines

19 set forth in the Court’s Order dated September 9, 2024. Dkt. No. 18. The parties have been

20 working diligently and cooperatively in the exchange of discovery documents and in

21 scheduling depositions. Nevertheless, the Parties have experienced delays in the

22 completion of discovery. Accordingly additional time is necessary to complete discovery,

23 conduct productive mediation and prepare the case for trial. Based on the foregoing, the

24 Parties respectfully ask the Court to continue the pre-trial deadlines as set forth below.

26 1 II. FACTS

2 This action arises from a dispute between the owners of two buildings located in

3 the South Lake Union neighborhood of Seattle. Plaintiff owns the Astra Hotel located at

4 300 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. Plaintiff contends that the

5 conditions of the neighboring Fred Rogers Building have substantially damaged Plaintiff.

6 Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the conditions of the Fred Rogers Building

7 constitute a Private Nuisance and/or a Public Nuisance. Dkt. 1. Defendant generally

8 denies Plaintiff’s allegations, denies liability and has asserted numerous affirmative

9 defenses. Dkt. 9.

10 The Parties have been actively participating in discovery. The Parties have

11 exchanged written discovery and have resolved all discovery disputes through the meet

12 and confer process. The Parties have also commenced the process of depositions and

13 Plaintiff has served its expert report on Defendant pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) and the

14 Court’s September 9, 2024 Order. The Parties have also been working towards finalizing

15 dates for third-party depositions, the deposition of expert witnesses and Plaintiff’s

16 30(b)(6) deposition. However, due to delays related to holidays and witness unavailability,

17 the Parties anticipate being unable to complete discovery before the currently set

18 discovery cut-off date. Accordingly, the Parties jointly request a brief extension of certain

19 pre-trial deadlines.

20 III. ARGUMENT

21 “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and

22 courtrooms with a view towards the efficient and expedient resolution of cases." Dietz v.

23 Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and W.D. Wash. Local

24 Rule 16, the Court may modify the Court’s scheduling order for good cause shown. The

25 “good cause” standard requires a showing that scheduling deadlines “cannot reasonably be

26 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recs. 1 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 Good cause exists to continue the trial schedule in this case. The Parties have 3 worked diligently in exchanging discovery in this matter and in resolving discovery 4 disputes without the need for Court intervention. The Parties have actively exchanged 5 written discovery and anticipate finalizing a mutually agreeable deposition schedule 6 including third-party depositions, Plaintiff's deposition and expert witness depositions. An 7 extension of certain pre-trial deadlines is necessary to allow the parties to finalize 8 discovery and fully develop the claims and defenses for trial. 9 Equally important, a continuance will allow the parties to complete discovery in a 10 manner that will maximize the chances that this case resolves in mediation or other 11 alternative dispute resolution forum. Allowing for additional time to conduct discovery 12 will ensure that the Parties’ have the necessary information to evaluate the claims and 13 defenses before mediation. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request the Court continue the 15 remaining pre-trial deadlines as follows: 46 Expert Rebuttal Disclosures | 1/2/2025 1/24/2025 ee

20 completed

23 Attorney settlement 4/30/2025 4/30/2025 (== =

1 Proposed jury instructions 6/9/2025 6/9/2025 due by 2 Pretrial Order due by 6/9/2025 6/9/2025 3

4 Trial briefs to be submitted 6/16/2025 6/16/2025 by 5 Proposed voir dire 6/16/2025 6/16/2025 6 questions due by

7 Deposition Designations 6/16/2025 6/16/2025 due by 8 Pretrial Conference set for 6/19/2025 6/19/2025

9 Jury Trial 6/30/2025 6/30/2025

10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, the Parties hereby jointly respectfully request that the

12 Court enter the above-stated amended case schedule.

13 DATED this 30th day of December, 2024.

14 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN 15 FEENEY PLLC

16 By: s/ Nicholas C. Larson By: s/ James G. Diehl Robert M. Sulkin, WSBA No. 15425 17 Nicholas C. Larson, WSBA 46034 James G. Diehl, WSBA No. 54914 520 Pike Street, Suite 1205 600 University Street, Suite 2700 18 Seattle, Washington 98101 Seattle, Washington 98101-3143 Telephone: (206) 219-2008 Telephone (206) 467-1816 19 nlarson@mpbf.com rsulkin@mcnaul.com jdiehl@mcnaul.com 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant F & F Rogers 21 Family Limited Partnership

26 1 ORDER 2 The Court GRANTS the Parties’ stipulated motion to continue the discovery 3 motion deadline and the discovery cut-off date. Dkt. No. 19. Accordingly, the Court 4 vacates the prior case deadlines (Dkt. No. 18) and orders the following pretrial schedule:

6 Expert Rebuttal Disclosures due by 1/24/2025 Discovery Motions 1/30/2025 8 9 Document Discovery completed 1/30/2025 10 Depositions Completed 2/15/2025 11

13 Attorney settlement conference to be held by | 4/30/2025 14 - - —_____—— Joint brief on Motions in Limine due by 5/26/2025 15 16 Proposed jury instructions due by 6/9/2025 7 Pretrial Order due by 6/9/2025 18 19 Trial briefs to be submitted by 6/16/2025 20 Proposed voir dire questions due by 6/16/2025 21 Deposition Designations due by 6/16/2025

53 Jury Trial set for 9:30 a.m. 6/30/2025

24 25 26

1 PROCEDURE FOR MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2 All motions in limine shall be submitted in a joint brief that: (1) contains an

3 introductory statement summarizing the case and the context for any disputes, with each 4 side drafting its own statement if they cannot agree; and (2) presents each motion under a 5 separate heading, below which the moving party will state its position and supporting legal 6

7 authority, and the opposing party will do the same below that. Any agreed motions shall be

8 noted as such. The joint brief must not exceed 12,600 words, excluding caption, date line,

9 and signature block, with each party contributing no more than 6,300 words. Each party

10 may submit a declaration along with the joint brief, as necessary. 11

IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

DATED: January 3, 2025 14

15 A

16 Kymberly K. Evanson

United States District Judge 17