Wise v. Ring LLC

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 MICHELLE WISE, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01298-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 RING, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle Wise’s motion to stay case 15 deadlines for 30 days pending settlement negotiations. Dkt. No. 54. For the reasons explained 16 herein, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 Scheduling orders “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of 19 the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 20 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Wise has not established good cause here. She contends that the existing case deadlines 22 should be extended in light of ongoing settlement discussions, in the interest of judicial economy 23 and preserving the resources of the parties. Dkt. No. 54 at 2. The existence of settlement 24 1 negotiations does not constitute good cause to modify a scheduling order, however. See, e.g., 2 Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pac. Co., No. 1:11-cv-01273-LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 645741, at 3 *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013). Wise has not shown that the settlement discussions would prevent

4 the parties from exercising diligence to adhere to the existing case schedule, which, as emphasized 5 by Defendant Ring, LLC (Dkt. No. 55 at 3), was set in November 2022. See Dkt. No. 48. Because 6 Wise has not established that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order, she has not shown 7 that she is entitled to the 30-day extension that she seeks. 8 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 54). 9 Dated this 15th day of September, 2023. 10 A 11 Kymberly K. Evanson 12 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24