Suta v. The Home Depot Inc

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 VAHID SUTA, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00744-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. [10] 11 THE HOME DEPOT, INC., ORDER 12 Defendant. [14] This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Rule 6(b)(1)(B) Motion to [15] Amend Case Schedule” (Dkt. # 35) and a motion to seal documents submitted in support [16] thereof (Dkt. # 34). The motion to seal is GRANTED. The information contained in the [17] sealed documents has nothing to do with the claims or defenses at issue in this litigation, [18] nor does it justify the requested extension of the case management deadlines. As such, the [19] public has little interest in the information and its dissemination could be used to annoy, [20] harass, or embarrass non-parties. [21] With regards to the request for an extension of the case management deadlines, [22] plaintiff has not shown that the failure to make expert disclosures and complete discovery [23] was the result of excusable neglect. Plaintiff acknowledges that his former counsel was [24] negligent, but argues that evaluating his conduct against the so-called Dix factors leads to [25] the conclusion that the neglect should be excused. To the contrary, the majority of the [26] ORDER - 1 [1] factors set forth in In re Dix, 95 B.R. 134, 138 (9th Cir. 1982), weigh against a finding of [2] excusable neglect. Granting the requested relief will force defendant, which has already [3] completed discovery and filed a motion for summary judgment based on the existing [4] record, to incur additional, unjustified costs to redo those tasks. The delay in disclosing [5] experts and completing discovery is significant enough to upend the trial schedule [6] established by the Court: it is not possible to introduce new expert testimony at this point [7] without reopening discovery, extending the dispositive motion deadline, and continuing [8] the trial date. Plaintiff admits that he has no explanation for his former attorney’s failure to [9] meet the case management deadlines and has not shown that his former attorney was in [10] any way prevented from performing in a timely manner or was acting in good faith.1 Thus, [11] the first four Dix factors suggest that the neglect was not, in this case, excusable. [12] The fifth Dix factor requires an evaluation of whether it would be fair to penalize [13] the client for his counsel’s mistake or neglect. Plaintiff relies heavily on this factor, [14] arguing that he had no way of knowing his former counsel was failing to meet case [15] management deadlines, that he acted in good faith throughout, that his replacement counsel [16] acted swiftly to salvage the situation, and that imputing prior counsel’s neglect to plaintiff [17] would be unfair. The fifth Dix factor was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in [18] Pioneer Investment Services, however. 507 U.S. at 396-97. Whether the client, separate [19] and apart from his counsel, acted reasonably and in good faith in monitoring or relying on [20] the conduct of his attorney is not the issue. Clients are bound by the acts and omissions of [21] their voluntarily chosen representatives, and they may not disavow the conduct of those [22] representatives in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. Id. at 397. “Any other [23] notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation . . . .” Id. [24] 25 1 In fact, the evidence shows that support staff repeatedly reminded plaintiff’s prior counsel of the upcoming deadline for submission of expert reports, but counsel insisted – incorrectly – that all he had to do by July 12, 2023, 26 was disclose the identity of the expert. Dkt. # 37 at 8-9. “[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable neglect’ . . . . Pioneer Inv. Servs., 507 U.S. at 392. ORDER - 2 [1] (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962)). Having failed to show that [2] his former counsel’s neglect was excusable, plaintiff is not entitled to an extension of the [3] case management deadlines. [5] For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 34) is GRANTED [6] and his motion to amend the case schedule (Dkt. # 35) is DENIED. [7] 8 Dated this 13th day of November, 2023. [10] Robert S. Lasnik 11 United States District Judge [26] ORDER - 3