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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Huong Hoangs motion for limited relief v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and IMDB.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE HUONG HOANG, an individual, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C11-1709MJP ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINES

18 from deadlines. (Dkt. No. 72.) Having reviewed the motion, Defendants opposition (Dkt. No. 19 75), Plaintiffs reply (Dkt. No. 77), and all related filings (Dkt. Nos. 73, 74, 76, 78, and 79), the 20 Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion. 21 In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from the expert disclosure deadline

22 and the discovery deadline. (Dkt. No. 72 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to permit her 23 to disclose two experts and propound three interrogatories and three requests for production. (Id. 24 at 1-2.) She also asks the Court to permit her to retract a stipulated exclusion of one fact witness.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 1

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

1 (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts this relief is justified because her former lead attorney, who died 2 Aug. 6, 2012, failed to adequately represent her, and because Defendants would not be 3 prejudiced. (Id. at 2-3.) 4 The Court disagrees. This appears to be simply Plaintiffs latest attempt to delay this

5 case. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff mailed a letter to the Court asking that it rule on Defendants 6 pending motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, extend the case schedule. (Dkt. No. 39.) The 7 Court declined. (Dkt. No. 42.) On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial date. 8 (Dkt. No. 50.) The Court denied that motion, finding that Plaintiff appears to be largely 9 responsible for any delays that had occurred, and noting that Plaintiff fails to show that she 10 diligently attempted to comply with the existing schedule. (Dkt. No. 59 at 2.) Finally, on Aug. 11 13, 2012, after the death of Plaintiffs lead counsel, the parties filed a stipulation asking to 12 continue the trial date and other deadlines by three months. (Dkt. No. 69.) The Court granted that 13 motion. (Dkt. No. 71.) 14 In the present motion, Plaintiff fails to show the existence of good cause justifying delay.

15 First, Plaintiff fails to offer any facts showing that her former lead counsel was too sick to 16 adequately represent her. (Dkt. No. 72 at 1.) Second, Plaintiffs assertion that her former 17 counsels junior associates were not authorized to appear at depositions because they were not 18 admitted pro hac vice misstates this Courts local rules, which do not require pro hac vice 19 admission for an attorney to appear at a deposition. (Dkt. No. 77 at 6); see Local Rule GR 2. 20 Third, while Plaintiffs current counsel may disagree with strategic decisions made by Plaintiffs 21 former counsel, Plaintiff makes no showing why her current counsel should be allowed to second 22 guess decisions that have already been made. (Id. at 4.) 23 24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 2

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

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

2 get up to speed. (Dkt. No. 77 at 2.) Plaintiffs new counsel, Derek Newman, has served as local 3 counsel on this case since its inception. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to Local Rule GR 2(d), Newman 4 certified on Oct. 14, 2011more than a year agothat he will be prepared to handle this 5 matter, including trial, in the event the applicant, John W. Dozier, Jr., is unable to be present 6 upon any date assigned by the court. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) That is precisely what occurred, and Mr. 7 Newman is bound by the commitment he made. (Id.) 8 Finally, Plaintiffs motion is denied because Plaintiffs proposed one-sided discovery is

9 prejudicial to Defendants. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 10 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a 11 district courts finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.). Similarly, 12 allowing a one-sided departure from a stipulation between the parties to exclude witnesses would 13 prejudice Defendants by requiring them to revisit their defense strategy, likely incurring 14 additional costs. (Dkt. No. 75 at 12.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINES- 3

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
Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge