Wise v. Ring LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MICHELLE WISE, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01298-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER v. RING, LLC, Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle Wise’s motion to stay case deadlines for 30 days pending settlement negotiations. Dkt. No. 54. For the reasons explained 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 the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

21 Wise has not established good cause here. She contends that the existing case deadlines should be extended in light of ongoing settlement discussions, in the interest of judicial economy and preserving the resources of the parties. Dkt. No. 54 at 2. The existence of settlement negotiations does not constitute good cause to modify a scheduling order, however. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pac. Co., No. 1:11-cv-01273-LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013). Wise has not shown that the settlement discussions would prevent the parties from exercising diligence to adhere to the existing case schedule, which, as emphasized by Defendant Ring, LLC (Dkt. No. 55 at 3), was set in November 2022. See Dkt. No. 48. Because Wise has not established that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order, she has not shown 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.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 12 United States District Judge