Opinion
2:21-cv-00726-RSM
12-17-2021
ANDREY LAVRENTYEV and TATYANA LAVRENTYEV, a married couple, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer, Defendant.
WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON Alfred E. Donohue Katherine B. White Alfred E. Donohue, WSBA No. 32774 Katherine B. White, WSBA No. 46649 Of Attorneys for Defendant GEICO Advantage MOORE LAW GROUP PLLC Joseph Moore Joseph W. Moore, WSBA No. 44061 Attorney for Plaintiff
WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON
Alfred E. Donohue
Katherine B. White
Alfred E. Donohue, WSBA No. 32774
Katherine B. White, WSBA No. 46649
Of Attorneys for Defendant GEICO Advantage
MOORE LAW GROUP PLLC
Joseph Moore
Joseph W. Moore, WSBA No. 44061
Attorney for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND AMEND CASE SCHEDULE AND ORDER
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. AGREED MOTION
Plaintiffs Andrey and Tatyana Lavrentyev and Defendant Geico Advantage Insurance Company (collectively “the parties”) bring this joint motion pursuant to LCR 10(g) and respectfully request that this Court modify its July 27, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 10) by rescheduling the July 11, 2022 jury trial date by approximately 60 days and similarly adjusting all discovery and trial-related deadlines as set forth below in Section III of this motion.
This matter was originally filed on removal from King County Superior Court on June 2, 2021 (Dkt. No. 1). The parties' joint status report and discovery plan was filed July 9, 2021 (Dkt. No. 9) and the Order setting trial date and related dates (Dkt. No. 10) was entered July 27, 2021. Since that time, the parties have diligently exchanged initial disclosures and have conducted extensive written discovery, with GEICO Advantage producing nearly 1, 000 pages of documents, which consist of its claim file and non-privileged communications pertaining to this matter.
The parties have been working to complete outstanding discovery, but with Plaintiff's illness and the number of witnesses for GEICO Advantage still to be deposed, depositions cannot be completed with sufficient time for the parties to provide complete information to their experts to complete expert reports by the January 12, 2022 deadline. To that end, the parties have agreed, subject to the court moving the trial and related dates, to conduct depositions of GEICO Advantage's corporate designee and GEICO employees in late January. The parties have also agreed to conduct a mediation in January in an attempt to resolve this matter before expending additional time and resources completing discovery. Good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date and related deadlines as outlined below.
II. GOOD CAUSE IS ESTABLISHED
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) provides that “a schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge . . ..” A party moving to amend a schedule should show that the deadlines presented cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking an extension. Pfeiffer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 137 F.R.D. 352, 355 (D. Kan. 1991); Sithon Maritime Co. v. Holiday Mansion, 177 F.R.D. 504, 508 (D. Kan. 1998); Wright & Miller, 6A Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1522.1, p. 230-31 (citing Advisory Committee notes to 1983 Amendment to Rule 16); ICU Med., Inc. v. Rymed Tech., Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d 574, 577 (D. Del. 2009). Courts should grant extensions when the moving party can show that it has worked diligently to position the case for trial or for disposition by motion, but unforeseeable circumstances or events beyond its control denied the moving party a fair opportunity to develop the evidence it needs under the existing scheduling order. See, 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 16.14. “Good cause” exists when the moving party has been generally diligent, the need for more time was neither foreseeable nor its fault, and refusing to grant the continuance would create a substantial risk of unfairness to that party. ICU Med., Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d at 577. To establish “good cause, ” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order's timetable. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Here, the parties have been diligent in conducting discovery but unforeseen events and the parties' discovery needs warrant an extension of the trial date and discovery and trial-related deadlines. Under the current case deadlines, the parties will be unable to complete depositions of witnesses, including GEICO Advantage's corporate designee(s) and employees, before the expert disclosure cut off.
A. Plaintiff's illness and recent return to the United States
Both Plaintiffs have been dealing with Ms. Lavrentyev's serious health issues which has required them to travel to outside of the United States for medical treatment. Plaintiffs only recently arrived back in the states and treatment will likely continue. As a result of Plaintiff's illness, the parties postponed Mr. Lavrentyev's deposition to December of 2021 and Ms. Lavrentyev's deposition has not yet been scheduled. Continuing the discovery cutoff will allow the parties to schedule Ms. Lavrentyev's deposition so it does not interfere with her health and medical treatment.
B. Extensive discovery needs
GEICO Advantage has produced nearly 1, 000 pages of claim file documents and email communications which pertain to Plaintiffs' claim(s) with Geico and which are related to the basis of Plaintiffs' Complaint against GEICO Advantage. The parties are currently working to reach an agreement on the production of additional records from GEICO Advantage. Extending the expert disclosure deadline will allow the parties to complete the exchange of documents.
C. Plaintiffs' depositions of GEICO Advantage's corporate designee and employees.
Plaintiffs have noted depositions of GEICO Advantage's corporate designee and GEICO Advantages employees, but with the number of witnesses, the prep time involved for those depositions, and the holidays in the month of December, the witnesses will not all be available for their depositions with sufficient time for Plaintiffs to provide information to their experts by the January 12, 2022 expert disclosure deadline. In addition, the parties hope to mediate in January of 2022, prior to conducting additional discovery and incurring related costs.
D. No prior continuances
Lastly, this is the parties' first request for a continuance of the trial date or related deadlines and the parties do not anticipate requesting any future continuances.
In order to effectuate the parties' discovery needs outlined above, the parties have agreed to conduct depositions of GEICO Advantage in January of 2022, subject to the Court granting a 60-day extension of the trial deadline and discovery deadlines.
III. PROPOSED REVISED CASE SCHEDULE
The parties request that the Court revise the case schedule as follows:
Activity
Current Deadline
Proposed Deadline
Trial Date
July 11, 2022
August 29, 2022
Deadline for amending pleadings and joining additional parties
August 24, 2021
October 25, 2021
Reports from expert witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
January 12, 2022
March 14, 2022
Deadline for filing motions related to discovery. Any such motions shall be noted for consideration pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3)
February 11, 2022
April 12, 2022
Discovery completed by
March 14, 2022
May 13, 2022
All dispositive motions must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar no later than the fourth Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d))
March 17, 2022
May 16, 2022
Mediation, per LCR 39.1(c)(3), if requested by the parties, held no later than
May 27, 2022
July 26, 2022
All motions in limine must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar no later than the THIRD Friday thereafter.
June 13, 2022
August 1, 2022
Agreed pretrial order due
June 29, 2022
August 17, 2022
Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court.
TBD
TBD
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and trial exhibits due
July 6, 2022
August 24, 2022
IT IS SO ORDERED.