Skjei v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 MICHAEL A. SKJEI, et al., CASE NO. C24-0615JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

15 Before the court is the parties’ joint motion to continue trial and modify the scheduling order in this matter. (See Mot. (Dkt. # 11); see also 9/19/24 Order (Dkt. # 10) (scheduling order).) Because the court finds good cause to grant the parties’ requests but is not available on the parties’ requested trial date, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ motion. The court continues the trial in this matter to September 14, 2026.

21 This case concerns a claim for a refund of federal income taxes that Plaintiffs paid for the 2016 tax year. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 1, 3-4.) Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 3, 2024. (Compl.) On November 19, 2024, the court entered an order setting trial for October 27, 2025. (9/19/24 Order at 1.) The court also, in relevant part, set a deadline of June 16, 2025 to complete discovery. (Id.) 4 On June 4, 2024, the parties moved to extend the discovery completion deadline by 120 days and to modify the court’s scheduling order “in accordance with the extension of discovery[,]” effectively seeking a continuance of the trial date. (See Mot. at 1.) The parties advise that discovery includes documents from 12 separate tax years and that these documents exist largely in physical form and have been difficult to locate and collect. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiffs have also experienced medical challenges that have complicated the collection of responsive documents. (Id. at 2.) The parties further advise that, despite these challenges, Plaintiffs have completed collection of “a significant number of responsive documents[,]” and the parties’ counsel have worked cooperatively, maintaining “a consistent line of communication throughout the process.” (Id.) 14 Pursuant to Rule 16, “[a] schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A good cause finding focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Because of the parties’ diligence, the court finds good cause to continue the trial and extend the unexpired case deadlines. Because the parties’ proposed trial date conflicts with other matters on the court’s calendar, the court will set trial for the next available date.

21 Accordingly, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ motion (Dkt. # 11) as follows: 1 (1) The court CONTINUES the trial in this case to September 14, 2026.

2 (2) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to reset the deadline for motions related to discovery and to reset all of the deadlines that have not yet passed in accordance with the new trial date.

6 Dated this 9th day of June, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART 8 United States District Judge