Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company

1 THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00616-BJR [11] Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION AND ORDER TO 12 VACATE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED v. DATES PENDING DECISION ON 13 PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY BCS INSURANCE COMPANY, JUDGMENT [14] Defendant. [17] I. INTRODUCTION/RELIEF REQUESTED [18] 19 Plaintiff Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“ASIC”) and Defendant BCS Insurance 20 Company (“BCSI”) (collectively “Parties”) by and through their respective attorneys, bring this 21 joint motion pursuant to LCR 10(g) and respectfully request that this Court modify its January 6, 22 2022 Order to vacate the December 8, 2022 bench trial and related dates pending decisions on 23 the Parties’ pending motions for summary judgment filed on August 8, 2022 and fully briefed as 24 of September 12, 2022. [26] II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [1] 2 In its Order of January 6, 2022, this Court set the trial date in this matter for December 8, 3 2022. Dkt. 89. Since that time, the Parties completed discovery and moved for summary 4 judgment on August 8, 2022. Those motions were fully briefed as of September 12, 2022. 5 Given that deadlines related to the December 8, 2022 trial date will begin passing imminently, 6 the Parties believe that it is in the interest of judicial economy that the trial date be vacated 7 pending decisions on the pending dispositive motions. [8] III. GOOD CAUSE IS ESTABLISHED [9] Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) provides that “a schedule shall not be modified except upon a [10] 11 showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge. . . .” A party moving to amend a 12 schedule should show that the deadlines presented cannot reasonably be met despite the 13 diligence of the party seeking an extension. Pfeiffer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 137 F.R.D. 352, 355 (D. 14 Kan. 1991 ); Wright & Miller, 6A Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1522.1, p. 230-31 (citing [15] Advisory Committee notes to 1983 Amendment to Rule 16); ICU Med., Inc. v. Rymed Tech., [16] Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 574, 577 (D. Del. 2009). Courts should grant extensions when the moving [17] party can show that it has worked diligently to position the case for trial or for disposition by [18] 19 motion. 20 Here, the Parties have been diligent in moving this matter to resolution. They have 21 completed discovery and filed their motions for summary judgment on the deadline set in the [22] scheduling order. The Parties believe that the pending motions will resolve all, or nearly all, of [23] the issues remaining in the case and that preparing for and proceeding to trial without the benefit [24] of this Court’s orders on the motions for summary judgment will be inefficient and a waste of the [25] Parties’ resources and judicial resources. Should trial remain necessary after the resolution of [26] the motions for summary judgment, the decisions on the motions will allow the parties to narrow [1] 2 their trial preparation, pre-trial filings, witnesses, and exhibits to only those issues not resolved 3 by summary judgment. 4 The Parties request that if the pending dispositive motions do not resolve all remaining [5] issues, that they be required to submit a joint status report within thirty (30) days of the issuance [6] of the Order on the pending dispositive motions and to participate in a status conference, if [7] requested by the Court, to reset the trial date and related dates. [8] 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties ask that the trial date and related dates be vacated. 11 A proposed Order follows. [12] Dated: September 20, 2022 [13] SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP [14] 15 By /s/Robert J. Guite Robert J. Guite, WSBA No. 25753 [16] INTACT U.S. COVERAGE LITIGATION GROUP [17] 18 Sara L. Menton, admitted Pro Hac Vice Emmitt L. DuBose III, admitted Pro Hac Vice [19] Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company [21] Dated: September 20, 2022 [22] 23 FROST PEARLMAN LLC [24] By s/Marc Pearlman 25 Marc Pearlman, admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendant 26 BCS Insurance Company ORDER [1] 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The December 8, 2022 trial date and related dates set 3 forth in the January 6, 2022 Order (Dkt. 89) are VACATED. To the extent that the pending 4 motions for summary judgment do not resolve all remaining issues in this case, the Parties shall [5] submit a further joint status report within 10 days of the Court’s Order on the pending motions [6] for summary judgment. [7] DATED this 26th day of October, 2022. [9] A [10] 11 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge [14] 15 Presented by: 16 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP [17] 18 By /s/ Robert J. Guite Robert J. Guite, WSBA No. 25753 [19] Attorneys for Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co.