Douglas v. EmployBridge, LLC

1 .

4 .

Ti UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ g WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KATHLEEN DOUGLAS, — CASE NO-C18-1215ILR- 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Vv. CONTINUE TRIAL 3 EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC, et al., 14 . Defendants.

15 Before the court is the parties’ stipulated motion to modify the court’s scheduling jlorder. (9/30/19 Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 15).) For the second time in four days, the parties || jointly request “a ninety (90) day continuance of the trial date and all unexpired pretrial || deadlines in this matter.” (d. at 1.) In support of that request, the parties assert, as they || did in their last stipulated motion, that they need a continuance so that they can || meaningfully engage in settlement negotiations. (See id. at 2; 9/27/19 Stip. Mot. (Dkt.

21 13) at-1-2,) .

ORDER - J l Absent a showing of good cause, the court does not grant “short” trial || continuances, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); (Sched. Order (Dkt. # 8) at 2 (“The court will || alter these dates only upon good cause shown ....”).) It is well established that || upcoming settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to modify a scheduling |lorder. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pac. Co., No. 1:11-cv-01273 LJO ||BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (“[A]s a legal maitter, \\settlement discussions do not, in [and] of themselves, arise to good cause for modifying a scheduling order.”); Rybski v. Home Depot USA, Inc,, No. CV-12-751-PHX-LOA, 2012 || WL 5416586, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2012) (“The parties’ settlement negotiations or ||mediation do not constitute good cause to continue the Rule 16 deadlines.”). Thus, the | || parties have not shown good cause to continue the case schedule. As such, the court 12 DENIES the parties’ stipulated motion (Dkt. # 15). □ 13 As the court noted in its last order, if the parties do not want to keep the current || case schedule, the court will consider moving the parties’ trial date to the end of the || court’s trial calendar. (See 9/27/19 Order (Dkt. # 14) at 2.) Maintaining the current trial || date or moving to the end of the court’s trial calendar are the only two options. The court || will not imperil the trial dates of other parties on the court’s calendar by granting the || parties a 90-day extension to engage in settlement negotiations. Ifthe parties wish to || move to the end of the trial calendar, they should file a new stipulated motion to that || effect within seven (7) days of the date of this order. The parties should be aware that the || court is presently scheduling trials in February 2021. If the court moves this matter to the ORDER -2 || end of its trial calendar, the court will also issue a new scheduling order with respect to || all remaining pretrial deadlines.

3 Dated this day of October, 2019. .

JAMES LL. ROBART 5 United States District Judge SSS, □□□□□ 13 .

15 |} 17 ||

ORDER - 3