Trautt v. Keystone RV Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 12, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00342
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE 11

12 JOSEPH P. TRAUTT, JR. and Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00342-RAJ 13 CATHERINE TRAUTT, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 Plaintiffs, MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE

v. 15

16 KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, an Indiana for profit corporation, 17

18 Defendant. 19 20 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the case schedule. 21 Dkt. # 39. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 22 This is a products liability action arising from injuries that Mr. Trautt allegedly 23 sustained while using the dinette table/bed in a 2017 Passport Elite travel trailer. See 24 generally Dkt. # 1-2. On April 17, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order in this case, 25 setting a trial date and related pre-trial deadlines. Dkt. # 11. On April 2, 2020, in 26 1 response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Court continued the trial date to September 28, 2 2020. Dkt. # 37. Plaintiffs now move to modify the scheduling order to allow them to 3 designate an additional expert witness and file two additional motions for summary 4 judgment. Dkt. # 39. 5 Once a district court files a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 16, “that rule’s standards control[ ].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (9th Cir. 1992). As Rule 16(b)(4) explains: “A schedule may 8 be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 9 To show “good cause” a party must show that they could not meet the deadline imposed 10 by the scheduling order despite its diligence. Johnson, at 609. While a court may 11 consider the “existence or degree of prejudice” to the opposing party, the focus of the 12 court’s inquiry is upon the moving party’s explanation for failure to timely move for 13 leave to amend. Id. 14 Plaintiffs first seek leave to disclose an additional expert witness to testify 15 regarding the reasonableness of Mr. Trautt’s medical expenses. The deadline to disclose 16 expert witnesses was November 6, 2019. Dkt. # 11. Plaintiffs claim that an additional 17 witness is now necessary because Defendant refused to stipulate to the reasonableness of 18 Mr. Trautt’s medical expenses. But Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that this 19 would be an issue in their case before the expert witness disclosure deadline. The fact 20 that Defendant, nearly four months after the deadline, refuses to stipulate to the 21 reasonableness of these expenses (as is their right) does not justify an extension. 22 Plaintiffs also request leave to file two additional motions for summary judgment 23 on Defendant’s liability and the reasonableness of Mr. Trautt’s medical expenses. Dkt. # 24 39 at 3. The dispositive motions deadline in this case was February 4, 2020. Dkt. # 11. 25 On January 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a single motion for summary judgment on some of 26 Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 29. Three weeks later, Plaintiffs took the 1 deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness, during which Plaintiffs contend “dispositive 2 issues germaine [sic] to liability and defenses thereto were specifically addressed.” Dkt. 3 # 39 at 2. Even if Plaintiffs’ intended motion for summary judgment was dependent on 4 the deposition testimony, they could have requested an extension before the disposition 5 motions deadline passed. Following Plaintiffs’ lead in relying upon Shakespeare to 6 advance their point: “[t]ime is the old justice that examines all such offenders.” WILLIAM 7 SHAKESPEARE, AS YOU LIKE IT, act 4, sc. 1. Waiting nearly three months to seek relief 8 does not constitute diligence or meet this Court’s expectation of timely action warranting 9 the relief requested. See LCR 7(j) (“A motion for relief from a deadline should, 10 whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to 11 rule on the motion prior to the deadline.”). 12 When the Court issues a scheduling order, it intends the parties to take it seriously. 13 Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Parties must 14 understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and 15 other orders, and that failure to do so may properly support severe sanctions and 16 exclusions of evidence.”). Here, Plaintiffs have not established “good cause” warranting 17 a modification of the case schedule. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 18 39. 19 DATED this 12th day of May, 2020. 20 A 21

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26