STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
The parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) seek to continue the deadlines set forth in the Court's April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement, for the reasons set forth below.
This case is the wrongful death counterpart to Case No. 2:07-cv-01454-JLR, which involves Plaintiff's personal injury/survival claims for her decedent, Henry Barabin. The wrongful death and survival cases both arise from Plaintiff's allegations that Mr. Barabin contracted and died of mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff filed this wrongful death case in King County Superior Court after the Ninth Circuit reversed a verdict in Plaintiff's favor for the survival claims and remanded it to the Western District for a new trial.
Like the personal injury/survival case, the instant case was removed to the Western District based on diversity jurisdiction. On April 27, 2017, the Court issued its Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement, which set the deadlines for the FRCP 26(f) conference (May 25), FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (June 1), and joint status report (June 8).
On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the instant case to state court. That motion is pending, and noted for hearing on May 26. If Plaintiff's remand motion is denied, the defendants will continue to seek to consolidate Plaintiff's wrongful death and personal injury/survival claims. The Order Setting Trial Related Dates in the personal injury/survival case was issued on March 27, 2017 and trial is scheduled to begin on March 26, 2018.
If, on the other hand, the remand motion is granted, then the deadlines for the FRCP 26(f) conference (5/25/17), FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (6/1/17), and joint status report (6/8/17) in the instant case will be moot. Therefore, the parties respectfully request a continuance of these deadlines until a month after adjudication of Plaintiff's motion for remand.
"The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming trial court decision to stay discovery pending resolution of issue of defendants' immunity). See, Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115, 99 S.Ct. 1635 (1979) (court has inherent power "to exercise appropriate control over the discovery process"); cf. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 81 S.Ct. 153, 57 S.Ct. 163 (1936) (court has inherent power to stay actions in their entirety). Granting the requested relief, stipulated by the parties, is squarely within the Court's inherent authority to manage its cases.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties, represented by the undersigned counsel, request that the deadlines in the April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement are hereby continued to one month after the date the Court issues an order on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.
This stipulation and agreed order have been approved as to form; notice of presentation and hearing on said Order is hereby waived by the parties.
The deadlines in the April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement are hereby continued to one month after the date the Court issues an order on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. IT IS SO ORDERED.