CNA Insurance Company Limited v. Expeditors International of Washington Inc

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [7] AT SEATTLE [8] 9 CNA INSURANCE COMPANY Case No. C18-932-RSM LIMITED, [10] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 11 Plaintiff, MODIFY ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES AND 12 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE 13 MOTION EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF 14 WASHINGTON, INC. d/b/a EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, and DOE I, [15] 16 Defendants. [17] This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Expeditors International of [18] 19 Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors’”)’s Motion to Modify Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates 20 and for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion. Dkt. #83. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), [21] Defendant seeks an order modifying the case schedule to allow Expeditors to bring a motion for [22] summary judgment seeking dismissal of this action. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion, [23] arguing that Defendant did not diligently pursue discovery, that Defendant could have and should [24] 25 have filed a timely dispositive motion, and that a modification of the schedule would not serve 26 to promote judicial economy. Dkt. #84. Having reviewed the relevant record and for the reasons [27] stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. [28] The Court’s Scheduling Order is meant to be neither flexible nor suggestive. Rather, [1] 2 “[t]he parties are bound by the dates specified in the scheduling order,” LCR 16(b)(6), which 3 “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (4); 4 LCR 16 (b)(4). This “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party [5] seeking the amendment,” though the court may also take into account “the existence or degree [6] of prejudice to the party opposing the modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 [7] 8 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). Mere “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence.” [9] Id. [10] In considering whether a continuance is proper, courts look to: (1) the moving party’s [11] diligence in its efforts to ready its defense prior to the date beyond which a continuance is sought; [12] 13 (2) whether the continuance would have served a useful purpose if granted; (3) the extent to 14 which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court, opposing parties, and 15 witnesses; and (4) the amount of prejudice suffered by the moving party due to the denial of the [16] continuance. Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 556 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted). [17] “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” [18] 19 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Here, the Court finds good cause for modifying the Court’s Scheduling Order and that [21] Defendant has satisfied the applicable standard for a continuance. As to the first factor, [22] Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s delay in disclosing witnesses Hong and Truong and the later [23] exclusions of said witnesses by the Court resulted in Defendant’s inability to move for summary [24] 25 judgment. Dkt. #83 at 4–5. In response, Plaintiff argues that its Rule 26 Disclosures and certain 26 discovery responses served in June 2019 identified “Representatives of Golden Star Co., Ltd.,” [27] a third-party company. Dkt. #84 at 2–3. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff brought [28] this case, Plaintiff has the burden to establish a prima facie case, and therefore Plaintiff has the [1] 2 burden to compel third-party testimony. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s response 3 unavailing. As for any attempt to relitigate whether witnesses Hong and Truong should have [4] been excluded—that issue is settled, and any related arguments are also unavailing. The Court [5] directs Plaintiffs to its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. See Dkt. #79. [6] As to the last three factors, the Court finds that briefing as to whether Plaintiffs can establish a [7] 8 prima facie case under the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. §30701 et seq 9 (“COGSA”) given the exclusion of witnesses Hong and Truong will promote judicial economy. [10] The Court finds that summary judgment briefing will at least clarify the issues for trial if [11] Defendant’s motion is denied, if not avoid a trial altogether if Defendant’s motion is granted. [12] 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 14 1) Defendant’s Motion to Modify Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates and for 15 Leave to File a Dispositive Motion (Dkt. #83) is GRANTED. [16] 2) Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than September 13, [17] 2023. [18] 19 3) The current trial date and related pretrial deadlines are stricken and will be reset 20 following the Court’s ruling on summary judgment. [22] DATED this 15th day of August, 2023. [24] 25 A [26] RICARDO S. MARTINEZ [27] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE