You're viewing Docket Item 122 from the case Bichindaritz v. University of Washington. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:10-cv-01371-RSL Document 122 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ISABELLE BICHINDARITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

Case No. C10-1371RSL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL DATE AND
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion For New Trial
Date” (Dkt. # 112) and “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint and for a Protective
Order” (Dkt. # 114). Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits
submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows:

Defendant’s motion for a new trial date is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court

is directed to issue a case management schedule consistent with a trial date of April 9,
2012. The parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to reach agreement regarding the
scheduling of Dr. Wise’s testimony or alternative means through which her testimony
can be presented at trial.1

1 Footnote 1 of defendant’s motion notwithstanding, the Court expects the parties to

engage in substantive discussions regarding scheduling issues and discovery matters before they

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL DATE AND DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Case 2:10-cv-01371-RSL Document 122 Filed 02/08/12 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED. This matter was on the verge of

trial when plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw. The association of new
counsel is not an excuse to add additional causes of action or rethink plaintiff’s litigation
strategy, especially where the withdrawal was necessitated by plaintiff’s own conduct.
Considerations regarding undue delay and prejudice show that amendment is not
appropriate. The deadline for amending the complaint has long since passed. In order to
gain certain litigation benefits, plaintiff expressly stated that she would not seek
emotional distress damages and would agree to a bench trial. Dr. Baiocchi, while aware
of this litigation and the need to be available as a witness, has not had an opportunity to
prepare an individual defense to the existing federal claims, much less a new state law
claim.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for a new trial date
(Dkt. # 112) is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. # 114) is DENIED.

Dated this 8th day of February, 2012.

ARobert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

are brought to the Court for resolution. With regards to Dr. Wise’s testimony, the Court is
amenable to creative solutions for obtaining her testimony at trial, including audio and/or visual
links, perpetuation depositions, or agreed scheduling arrangements. The parties shall discuss the
available options prior to the pretrial conference scheduled for February 22, 2012.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL DATE AND DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND

2