Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI

W.D. Washington

Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI

DecidedFebruary 16, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01116

StatusUnknown

This text of Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI (Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI) 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

Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 WHITNEY SPICHER, CASE NO. C22-1116 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE 12 v. 13 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. and 14 JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Expert 18 Deadline. (Dkt. No. 14.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, the Court 19 DENIES the Motion without prejudice. 20 Rule 16(b)(4) states that “a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 21 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 22 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 23 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 24 1 reasons for seeking modification” and “[i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 2 Id. (citation omitted). 3 Although the Motion states that the Parties wish to “continue the trial date and remaining 4 deadlines in this matter,” they only to ask for an extension of the expert disclosure deadline.

5 (Compare Mot. at 1 with Mot. at 2.) The current expert disclosure deadline is April 3, 2023. 6 (Dkt. No. 12.) The Parties ask for an additional sixty days so that they can “properly disclose 7 experts that may be retained based on the outcome of Plaintiff ‘s deposition” which is currently 8 set for February 28, 2023. (Mot. at 2.) But the Parties fail to explain why the month between the 9 scheduled deposition and the current expert disclosure deadline is an inadequate amount of time 10 for their experts to prepare reports. Nor have the Parties identified any other reason why the 11 expert disclosure deadline should be extended and why, with diligence, they cannot meet that 12 existing deadline. The Court finds an absence of good cause and DENIES the Motion without 13 prejudice. The Parties may submit a renewed request, but it must, at a minimum, address the 14 Court’s concerns identified in this Order.

15 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 16 Dated February 16, 2023. A 17 18 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 WHITNEY SPICHER, CASE NO. C22-1116 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE 12 v. 13 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. and 14 JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Expert 18 Deadline. (Dkt. No. 14.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, the Court 19 DENIES the Motion without prejudice. 20 Rule 16(b)(4) states that “a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 21 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 22 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 23 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 24 1 reasons for seeking modification” and “[i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 2 Id. (citation omitted). 3 Although the Motion states that the Parties wish to “continue the trial date and remaining 4 deadlines in this matter,” they only to ask for an extension of the expert disclosure deadline.

5 (Compare Mot. at 1 with Mot. at 2.) The current expert disclosure deadline is April 3, 2023. 6 (Dkt. No. 12.) The Parties ask for an additional sixty days so that they can “properly disclose 7 experts that may be retained based on the outcome of Plaintiff ‘s deposition” which is currently 8 set for February 28, 2023. (Mot. at 2.) But the Parties fail to explain why the month between the 9 scheduled deposition and the current expert disclosure deadline is an inadequate amount of time 10 for their experts to prepare reports. Nor have the Parties identified any other reason why the 11 expert disclosure deadline should be extended and why, with diligence, they cannot meet that 12 existing deadline. The Court finds an absence of good cause and DENIES the Motion without 13 prejudice. The Parties may submit a renewed request, but it must, at a minimum, address the 14 Court’s concerns identified in this Order.

15 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 16 Dated February 16, 2023. A 17 18 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spicher-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack