7/31/2019 Hoang v. Amazon.com, C11-1709MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2012)

1/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HUONG HOANG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delawarecorporation, and IMDB.COM, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C11-1709MJP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

DEADLINES

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Huong Hoangs motion for limited relief

from deadlines. (Dkt. No. 72.) Having reviewed the motion, Defendants opposition (Dkt. No.

75), Plaintiffs reply (Dkt. No. 77), and all related filings (Dkt. Nos. 73, 74, 76, 78, and 79), the

Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion.

In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from the expert disclosure deadline

and the discovery deadline. (Dkt. No. 72 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to permit her

to disclose two experts and propound three interrogatories and three requests for production. (Id.

at 1-2.) She also asks the Court to permit her to retract a stipulated exclusion of one fact witness.

Case 2:11-cv-01709-MJP Document 80 Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 3

7/31/2019 Hoang v. Amazon.com, C11-1709MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2012)

2/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 2

(Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts this relief is justified because her former lead attorney, who died

Aug. 6, 2012, failed to adequately represent her, and because Defendants would not be

prejudiced. (Id. at 2-3.)

The Court disagrees. This appears to be simply Plaintiffs latest attempt to delay this

case. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff mailed a letter to the Court asking that it rule on Defendants

pending motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, extend the case schedule. (Dkt. No. 39.) The

Court declined. (Dkt. No. 42.) On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial date.

(Dkt. No. 50.) The Court denied that motion, finding that Plaintiff appears to be largely

responsible for any delays that had occurred, and noting that Plaintiff fails to show that she

diligently attempted to comply with the existing schedule. (Dkt. No. 59 at 2.) Finally, on Aug.

13, 2012, after the death of Plaintiffs lead counsel, the parties filed a stipulation asking to

continue the trial date and other deadlines by three months. (Dkt. No. 69.) The Court granted that

motion. (Dkt. No. 71.)

In the present motion, Plaintiff fails to show the existence of good cause justifying delay.

First, Plaintiff fails to offer any facts showing that her former lead counsel was too sick to

adequately represent her. (Dkt. No. 72 at 1.) Second, Plaintiffs assertion that her former

counsels junior associates were not authorized to appear at depositions because they were not

admitted pro hac vice misstates this Courts local rules, which do not require pro hac vice

admission for an attorney to appear at a deposition. (Dkt. No. 77 at 6); see Local Rule GR 2.

Third, while Plaintiffs current counsel may disagree with strategic decisions made by Plaintiffs

former counsel, Plaintiff makes no showing why her current counsel should be allowed to second

guess decisions that have already been made. (Id. at 4.)

Case 2:11-cv-01709-MJP Document 80 Filed 10/17/12 Page 2 of 3

7/31/2019 Hoang v. Amazon.com, C11-1709MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2012)

3/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 3

Marsha J. PechmanUnited States District Judge

The Court also rejects Plaintiffs argument that her new lead counsel needs extra time to

get up to speed. (Dkt. No. 77 at 2.) Plaintiffs new counsel, Derek Newman, has served as local

counsel on this case since its inception. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to Local Rule GR 2(d), Newman

certified on Oct. 14, 2011more than a year agothat he will be prepared to handle this

matter, including trial, in the event the applicant, John W. Dozier, Jr., is unable to be present

upon any date assigned by the court. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) That is precisely what occurred, and Mr.

Newman is bound by the commitment he made. (Id.)

Finally, Plaintiffs motion is denied because Plaintiffs proposed one-sided discovery is

prejudicial to Defendants. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980,

986 (9th Cir. 1999) (A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a

district courts finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.). Similarly,

allowing a one-sided departure from a stipulation between the parties to exclude witnesses would

prejudice Defendants by requiring them to revisit their defense strategy, likely incurring

additional costs. (Dkt. No. 75 at 12.)

For all these reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. The current case schedule stands.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Dated this 17th day of October, 2012.

A

Case 2:11-cv-01709-MJP Document 80 Filed 10/17/12 Page 3 of 3