Owa v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc, C16-1236 RAJ. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180105c31
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for extension of discovery deadlines. Dkt. #84. Defendant Fred Meyer Stores ("Fred Meyer") opposes the motion. Dkt. #87. The Court set the discovery cutoff in this matter for December 18, 2017. Dkt. #78. The Court further required that "[a]ll motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3)." Id. The S
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for extension of discovery deadlines. Dkt. #84. Defendant Fred Meyer Stores ("Fred Meyer") opposes the motion. Dkt. #87. The Court set the discovery cutoff in this matter for December 18, 2017. Dkt. #78. The Court further required that "[a]ll motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3)." Id. The Sc..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for extension of discovery deadlines. Dkt. #84. Defendant Fred Meyer Stores ("Fred Meyer") opposes the motion. Dkt. #87.
The Court set the discovery cutoff in this matter for December 18, 2017. Dkt. #78. The Court further required that "[a]ll motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3)." Id. The Scheduling Order in this matter is strict, warning that "[t]hese are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties." Id. The Court may order such a change "only for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Plaintiff has not shown good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. It appears from the motion that the only basis for "good cause" is Plaintiff's carelessness, see Dkt. #84 at 2 (stating that "the Court's electronically transmitted Order . . . escaped the undersigned's attention"), and time restraints in association with prosecuting her own case, see id. at 2-5 (explaining that Plaintiff demonstrated due diligence and good faith by responding to discovery, pursuing mediation, and defending depositions). Nothing in Plaintiff's motion suggests to the Court that there is good cause to modify the Scheduling Order.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. #84.
Source: Leagle
