Opinion
2:23-cv-01237-BJR
09-25-2023
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INITIAL SCHEDULING DEADLINES
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge
The parties have stipulated and moved the Court to suspend their initial disclosure and joint status report obligations under Federal Rule 26(f), asserting that given the pending motions to dismiss and to remand, “the Court should extend the deadlines.” Dkt. No. 25 at 2. A Court may extend initial deadlines upon a showing of “good cause for delay.” LCR 16(a); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). However, “[a] pending dispositive motion is not, as a general matter, good cause for extending court deadlines.” Taylor v. Metro. Dev. Council, 2022 WL 3646787, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 24, 2022) (citing Edmonds v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 8996835, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2020) (treating a motion to stay initial case deadlines as seeking, in effect, to stay the entire case and observing that a “pending motion to dismiss is generally not grounds for staying discovery.”)). In this case, Plaintiffs claim in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that the motion should be denied because, among other things, “there are genuine issues of material fact to be decided by the trier of fact.” Pls.' Opp. at 3. Additionally, whether or not Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand proves meritorious, requiring the initial scheduling conference and the exchange of initial disclosures to proceed without delay will serve the speedy resolution of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion for an extension of initial scheduling dates.