Goose Ridge LLC v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington

Goose Ridge LLC v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 GOOSE RIDGE, LLC and GOOSE CASE NO. C24-1058 MJP RIDGE VINEYARDS, LLC, 11 ORDER DENYING STIPULATED Plaintiffs, MOTION TO EXTEND 12 v. 13 THE OHIO CASUALTY 14 INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend the 18 Discovery Deadline. (Dkt. No. 44.) Having reviewed the Joint Motion and all supporting 19 materials, the Court DENIES the Motion. 20 Rule 16(b)(4) states that “a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 21 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 22 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 23 Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609

(9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 24 1 reasons for seeking modification” and “[i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 2

Id.

(citation omitted). 3 The Parties have not demonstrated good cause to extend the discovery deadline from 4 June 20 to July 21, 2025. The Parties argue that Ohio Casualty’s Motion for Partial Summary

5 Judgment “presented . . . a threshold question as to [what] . . . standard of causation . . . applies” 6 and that the Court’s May 19th Order “appears to have identified such a standard.” (Mot. at 2.) 7 The Parties also argue that the Court’s Order “also identified various questions of fact to which 8 the Parties intend to direct additional discovery.” (Id.) Absent from the Motion is any evidence 9 as to what the Parties did to develop the facts relevant to the claims at issue before requesting 10 additional time. They have not explained what discovery they need to conduct, why it could not 11 have been completed earlier, and why it cannot be completed within the time remaining before 12 the discovery cut-off. The Court DENIES the Motion. The Court’s denial is without prejudice to 13 a renewed motion that addresses the Court’s concerns and demonstrates good cause. 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated June 10, 2025. A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Reference

Status
Unknown