Palpallatoc v. The Boeing Company

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 NO. 22-cv-5728 ARCHELINO T. PALPALLATOC, 8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFE’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL v. THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

13 Plaintiff, Archelino Palpallatoc, brought this employment discrimination action against his ||employer, The Boeing Company, alleging violations of the Washington Law Against || Discrimination (““WLAD”). Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery ||Supplementation, ECF No. 65, and Plaintiff’s FRCP 56(d)! Motion, ECF No. 69. Having ||reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs motion as untimely, and || accordingly, Plaintiff’s 56(d) motion is moot.

19 On January 12, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting trial and related dates, which || included a deadline for the completion of discovery by August 30, 2023. ECF No. 25. By multiple || stipulated motions, the Court granted extensions to the discovery deadline, the most recent of which 23 Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

9A || ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL || -!

1 extended the discovery deadline to December 15, 2023, with a limited extension to January 10, 2024 for one further witness deposition. See ECF No. 50. No further requests for extension have been filed.

4 According to the Court’s Standing Order, ECF No. 11, “[d]iscovery disputes shall be raised in a timely manner so as to allow discovery to be completed within the discovery deadline. The failure to do so may waive a party’s ability to challenge the discovery behavior.” Further, this Court’s Local Civil Rule 16 requires any motion to compel discovery to be filed and served on or before the discovery deadline. The parties did not raise their discovery dispute to the Court until January 18, 2024, and upon reviewing the parties’ subsequent filings, it is apparent that the dispute arose prior to the end of discovery. “[W]hen parties delay discovery for any reason, they do so at their peril. Rule 29 provides the procedure for parties to cooperatively complete discovery after a court-ordered cutoff, but only by stipulated order.” Wyles v. Sussman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 751, 756 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Plaintiff’s discovery motion is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment motion is moot.

15 DATED this 7th day of February 2023.

A 18 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL