Flooring Associates Inc v. Design Manufacturing International LLC

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [9] 10 FLOORING ASSOCIATES, INC., CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00057-JCC-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION, CONTINUANCE, AND STAY 13 DESIGN MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., [14] Defendants. [15] 16 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for extension, continuance, and stay. 17 See Dkt. 19. 18 On April 22, 2020, plaintiff filed this motion requesting a 90-day extension of discovery 19 deadlines, including an extension to respond to defendants’ discovery requests; a 90-day 20 continuance of trial date and all associated deadlines; and a 90-day stay of proceedings in this 21 case. See Dkt. 19, at 4. Plaintiff states that Scott C. Razor and Martine Razor (husband and 22 wife) are the sole shareholders and sole employees of plaintiff Flooring Associates, Inc. (“FAI”). 23 Id. at 3. Plaintiff indicates that Martine Razor was diagnosed with cancer in March 2020, and [24] 1 she underwent three surgeries and began procedures to begin chemotherapy treatment as of April 2 21, 2020. See id. at 4; Dkt. 20, at 2. Plaintiff further indicates that Scott C. Razor is the sole 3 caregiver to Martine Razor during her treatment, and as such, Scott C. Razor has been unable to 4 assist in the operation of FAI or prosecution of this case. See Dkt. 19, at 4. Additionally, 5 plaintiff indicates that the imposition of Washington State’s Stay Home, Stay Healthy Order has 6 made it impossible for plaintiff to obtain all necessary information to respond to defendants’ 7 discovery requests. See id. Plaintiff seeks an extension of discovery deadlines, continuance of 8 trial date and associated deadlines, and stay of this case to allow Martine Razor to complete her 9 cancer treatments and to allow time for plaintiff to obtain evidence and information in this case 10 once the Stay Home, Stay Healthy Order is lifted. Id. at 4–5. 11 Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion for extension, continuance, and stay. Dkt. 21. 12 Defendants note that plaintiff filed the instant motion on the same date that plaintiff’s responses 13 to defendants’ discovery requests were due, and that plaintiff did not notify defendants of 14 plaintiff’s intention to file the instant motion until April 22, 2020, the same day that the motion 15 was filed. See id. at 4. Defendants state that plaintiff’s motion does not request a stay of 16 defendants’ discovery deadlines, and that if the Court grants plaintiff’s motion, defendants would 17 be required to respond to discovery requests propounded by plaintiff and would still have to 18 comply with the Court’s scheduling order. See Dkts. 15, at 3; 21, at 6. Although defendants 19 state that they are sympathetic to Martine Razor’s medical condition, defendants contend that 20 plaintiff’s request for extension, continuance, and stay are not reasonable or appropriate. Id. at 2, 21 9. Instead, defendants argue that the Court should grant plaintiff a 30-day extension to respond 22 to defendants’ discovery requests and that the Court should deny plaintiff’s request for 90-day 23 extension of present deadlines, continuance of trial date, and stay of this case. See id. at 9–10. [24] 1 DISCUSSION 2 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” Lockyer 3 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 4 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The Court’s broad discretion to stay a proceeding is “incident to its 5 power to control is own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). 6 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court must weigh the competing 7 interests that will be affected by granting or denying the stay. Ali v. Trump, 241 F.Supp. 3d 8 1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (citing Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 ). These interests include, “the 9 possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a 10 party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in 11 terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 12 expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 13 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). 14 The Court, having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, finds good cause to grant 15 plaintiff’s motion for extension, continuance, and stay. Dkt. 19. Here, plaintiff provides two 16 significant grounds in support of its motion: (1) Martine Razor’s medical health, and (2) the 17 imposition of the Stay Home, Stay Healthy Order. Since filing the instant motion, Washington 18 State Governor Jay Inslee extended the Stay Home, Stay Healthy Order to May 31, 2020, in light 19 of the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threat. See Proclamation 20-25.3 (May 20 4, 2020), https://coronavirus.wa.gov/. The Court recognizes that the parties’ ability to effectively 21 conduct discovery has likely been impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and that 22 plaintiff is further impacted by Scott C. Razor’s need to care for his wife and simultaneously 23 operate FAI. Additionally, as plaintiff has not requested an indefinite stay of proceedings, the [24] 1 Court finds plaintiff’s requests are reasonable in light of the circumstances raised in plaintiff’s 2 motion. 3 The Court does not agree with defendants’ argument that granting plaintiff’s motion 4 would preclude defendants from obtaining any documentary and testimonial evidence. See Dkt. 5 21, at 9. To the contrary, plaintiff’s requested relief for temporary continuance of the trial date 6 and all corresponding deadlines, and the temporary stay of proceedings applies to all parties. See 7 Dkt. 19, at 5. Additionally, an extension of time to respond to defendants’ discovery requests 8 does not eliminate plaintiff’s obligation to respond to those discovery requests. However, the 9 Court recognizes that defendants would be prejudiced if only plaintiff’s discovery deadlines were 10 extended without a corresponding extension for defendants to conduct discovery. The Court has 11 taken this into consideration in its findings below. 12 Finally, while the Court finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 19), the Court 13 notes that plaintiff provided defendants with little notice before filing the instant motion. See 14 Dkt. 21, at 4, 7–8. Plaintiff does not indicate why so little notice was provided to defendants. 15 While this Court will grant relief on this occasion for the reasons stated above, plaintiff is 16 cautioned that in the future it must seek relief from a deadline in compliance with the Local Civil 17 Rules (“LCR”) and meet and confer as required. See Local Rule 7(j). 18 CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 20 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for extension, continuance, and stay (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED. 21 Plaintiff may have a 90-day extension of discovery deadlines, including extension to 22 respond to defendants’ discovery requests served on March 23, 2020. See Dkt. 22, at 23 2. Additionally, the date of jury trial and corresponding deadlines in this case are [24] 1 continued for 90 days, and the current proceedings are stayed for 90 days from this 2 Order; and 3 (2) Defendants may have a corresponding 90-day extension of discovery deadlines, 4 including discovery propounded by plaintiff and expert disclosure and rebuttal 5 deadlines. 6 Having granted plaintiff’s motion, the Court sets this matter for a five-day jury trial on to 7 commence at 9:30 a.m. on March 15, 2021, in Courtroom 16206 before U.S. District Court 8 Judge John C. Coughenour. The Court also amends the following deadlines: 9 Event Date 10 Plaintiff’s expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) July 30, 2020 11 Defendant’s expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) August 13, 2020 12 Rebuttal expert disclosures August 27, 2020 13 All motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d) and LCR 37(a)(2) [14] Discovery completed by September 29, 2020 [15] All dispositive motions must be filed by (see LCR 7(d)) October 29, 2020 [16] Settlement Conference per LCR 39.1(c)(2) held no later than December 30, 2020 [17] All motions in limine must be filed by this date and noted on the February 11, 2021 18 motion calendar no later than the second Friday after filing. 19 Motions in limine raised in trial briefs will not be considered. Agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due February 11, 2021 [20] Pretrial conference To be set if needed [21] Trial briefs, proposed voir dire, jury instructions and exhibits by March 15, 2021 [24] 1 If the trial dates assigned to this matter creates an irreconcilable conflict, counsel must 2 notify Deputy Clerk Kelly Miller at Kelly_miller@wawd.uscourts.gov, within 10 days of the 3 date of this Order and must set forth the exact nature of the conflict. A failure to do so will be 4 deemed a waiver. 5 The deadlines in the Court’s prior scheduling order (Dkt. 15) shall otherwise remain in 6 force. 7 Dated this 6th day of May, 2020. [9] A [10] J. Richard Creatura [11] United States Magistrate Judge