Hills v. Gentry

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOSHUA HILLS, et al., NO. 3:19-cv-05634-RBL 9 Plaintiff(s), STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND EXTEND CASE v. 10 DEADLINES MICHAEL J GENTRY, et al., Defendant(s).

13 For good cause shown and with the judge’s consent, the Court may modify the deadlines in the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also LCR 16(b)(5). The “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment: the district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the opposing party might supply additional considerations for a motion to modify, the focus remains on the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. See also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted).

22 The parties respectfully move to alter the case schedule in this matter. The new proposed schedule pushes all pending discovery deadlines back approximately four months (120 days). The STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL MULLI 1N 0, 1 A YL esL leE r N W & ay ,S ST uiE teI N 40E 0R PLLC parties further request a trial date after April 5, 2021, to accommodate counsel’s schedules. The parties do not seek to alter or extend any case schedule deadlines that have already passed.

3 The parties have been diligent and discovery in this case has proceeded, with significant document production, and written discovery. However, the City of Forks has a significant number of documents yet to be produced (estimated at this time to be in the thousands), which are time- consuming to review. The City of Forks is the custodian for the vast majority of responsive records pertaining to Defendant Michael Gentry.

8 This continuance is being requested due to a delay in discovery production as a function of the volume of responsive documents being sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff issued his first discovery requests to Defendant City of Forks on November 11, 2019. The parties have worked amicably to enter a protective order and discuss the delay in document production. To date, Defendant City of Forks is still in the process of reviewing the documents that are to be produced to Plaintiff and have yet to produce a significant number of documents anticipated to be in excess of 5,000 pages. These documents need to be produced under the protective order and, because it has taken three additional months beyond the due date to identify them and review them, it is reasonable to expect Plaintiff will need additional time to review them as well. Thus, the parties agree that this document production delay was reasonable and not the fault of any party, but it has caused a four-month delay to discovery.

18 Therefore, the parties request a four-month trial continuance.

19 The parties respectfully request the Court modify the scheduling order (Dkt. 23) as follows: 20  Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2) October 2, 2020 21  All motions related to discovery must be filed by November 13, 2020  Discovery completed by December 3, 2020  All dispositive motions filed by and noted on motion December 31, 2020 23 calendar no later than the fourth Friday thereafter STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL MULLI 1N 0, 1 A YL esL leE r N W & ay ,S ST uiE teI N 40E 0R PLLC later than  Mediation per LCR 39.1(c)(3) held no later than February 26, 2021  Letter of compliance as to LCR 39.1 filed by March 10, 2021  Motions in limine must be filed by February 26, 2021  Agreed pretrial order due March 12, 2021  Pretrial conference: March 19, 2021  Trial briefs, proposed voir dire, jury instructions March 16, 2021 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED this 28th day of February 2020.

MULLIN, ALLEN & STEINER PLLC DELUE LAW PLLC By: s/Daniel D. DeLue_____________ By: s/Timothy E. Allen_______________________ Daniel D. DeLue, WSBA No. 29357 Timothy E. Allen, WSBA No. 35337 Email: [email protected] 12 Email: [email protected] Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC TURNER KUGLER LAW, PLLC

16 By: s/Thomas P. Miller_______________________ By: s/John T. Kugler_______________ Robert L. Christie, WSBA No. 10895 John T. Kugler, WSBA No. 19960 17 Thomas P. Miller, WSBA No. 34473 [email protected] Megan M. Coluccio, WSBA No. 44178 Attorney for Defendant Gentry 18 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 19 Email: [email protected] 20 Attorneys for Defendant City of Forks

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL MULLI 1N 0, 1 A YL esL leE r N W & ay ,S ST uiE teI N 40E 0R PLLC I. ORDER THIS MATTER having come on regularly for hearing upon the stipulation of the parties above contained, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore, it is hereby 4 ORDERED that the current trial date of November 30, 2020 is continued to April 12, 2021.

5 All related case deadlines shall be reset.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2020.

A 9 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge Presented by: s/Timothy E. Allen_______________________ Timothy E. Allen, WSBA No. 35337 13 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff s/Daniel D. DeLue_____________ Daniel D. DeLue, WSBA No. 29357 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Approved as to Form, Notice of Presentation Waived

18 s/John T. Kugler______________ John T. Kugler, WSBA No. 19960 Attorney for Defendant Gentry s/Thomas P. Miller_______________ 21 Robert L. Christie, WSBA No. 10895 Thomas P. Miller, WSBA No. 34473 22 Megan M. Coluccio, WSBA No. 44178 Attorneys for Defendant City of Forks STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL MULLI 1N 0, 1 A YL esL leE r N W & ay ,S ST uiE teI N 40E 0R PLLC