Timaero Ireland Limited v. The Boeing Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE TIMAERO IRELAND LIMITED, No. 2:21-00488-RSM Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND v. DISCOVERY SCHEDULE Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1), 7(j), 10(g), and 16(b)(6), Plaintiff Timaero Ireland Limited (“Timaero”) and Defendant The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move the Court for an order revising the discovery schedule set forth in the Court’s April 8, 2024 Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates (Dkt. No. 140), without adjusting the trial date. The parties are close to completing document discovery and have started to notice depositions (although none have been confirmed at this time). The current expert disclosure deadline is July 9. The Parties propose a modest extension to the same. STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO This extension will not impact any Court filing deadlines or the trial date. The Parties are timely making this request, well in advance of two weeks before the current September 8, 2025 discovery deadline to ensure the Court has sufficient time to decide the motion. For these reasons and those detailed below, good cause exists to revise the case schedule. II. LEGAL STANDARD “The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court.” James v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., No. C22-772-RSM, 2023 WL 5020403, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2023) (Martinez, J.) (citation omitted). The Court may extend the case schedule where good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LCR 16(b)(6). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). Local Civil Rule 7(j) establishes that “[a] motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” III. ARGUMENT Good cause exists to modestly extend the discovery deadlines. Since the Court’s April 8, 2024 Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates (Dkt. No. 140), the parties have diligently en- gaged in the discovery process and made good faith efforts to complete their productions. The Parties jointly ask to extend the case schedule and neither alleges that any prejudice would arise from the extension. Allowing the Parties to complete fact and expert discovery by extending the discovery deadlines also will contribute to the efficient and just resolution of this case, by ensuring that de- cision-making on any Daubert motions, dispositive motions, and—if necessary—at trial is based STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO on a full and complete record. See St. George v. Sequim Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-05372-RJB, 2018 WL 6518118, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2018) (“An extension of the remaining court deadlines is appropriate to allow the parties to complete discovery and engage in further discussions related to resolution.”). Furthermore, the Parties are filing this motion well in advance of the discovery deadline, and it will not impact the Court’s filing deadline for filing dispositive motions (October 7, 2025), motions in limine (December 8, 2025), or trial briefs (December 31, 2025). The Parties’ timely motion, their efforts to meet the Court’s deadlines, and the lack of prejudice on any party or the Court all point to good cause. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as follows: Current Dates New Dates Disclosure of expert testimony under July 9, 2025 July 29, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) Deadline for filing motions related to discovery. August 8, 2025 August 22, 2025 Any such motions shall be noted for considera- tion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) Discovery completed by September 8, 2025 September 22, 2025

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO IT IS SO STIPULATED by and between the Parties. By: s/Ulrike B. Connelly RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, WSBA No. 27850 of June, 2025. Harry H. Schneider, Jr., WSBA No. 9404 I certify that this motion/memorandum con- Ulrike B. Connelly, WSBA No. 42478 tains 74 words, in compliance with the Local Sarah L. Schirack, WSBA No. 59669 Civil Rules. Marten N. King, WSBA No. 57106

Perkins Coie LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Telephone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 KO’Sullivan@perkinscoie.com HSchneider@perkinscoie.com UConnelly@perkinscoie.com MKing@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Defendant The Boeing Company By: s/Alan Harrison Alan Harrison, pro hac vice 600 Summer Street Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: +1.203.703.0800 Facsimile:+1.203.703.0801 aharrison@whipgroup.com Gregory J. Hollon, WSBA No. 26311 Timothy B. Fitzgerald, WSBA No. 45103 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: +1.206.467.1816 Fax: +1.206.624.5128 ghollon@mcnaul.com tfitzgerald@mcnaul.com Attorneys for Plaintiff STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadline for the Parties shall be extended as follows: Current Dates New Dates Disclosure of expert testimony under July 9, 2025 July 29, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) Deadline for filing motions related to discovery. August 8, 2025 August 22, 2025 Any such motions shall be noted for considera- tion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) Discovery completed by September 8, 2025 September 22, 2025 DATED this 30th day of June, 2025.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER (NO. 2:21-00488- RSM) – 2