Case Information
*1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
LEONID KUCHEROV, CASE NO. C17-5050 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING
v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR PROTECTIVE MTC FINANCIAL, INC., et al., ORDER AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
Defendants. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants CIT Bank N.A., MTC Financial, Inc., and OWB REO, LLC’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for protective order (Dkt. 25) and motion to extend deadline for discovery (Dkt. 27).
On January 26, 2017, the Court issued an order setting deadlines as follows: Joint Status Report (“JSR”) due by 4/26/2017, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 4/12/2017, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 4/19/2017. Dkt. 7. On May 2 and 31, 2017, the Court warned the parties that they must file a JSR or face dismissal.
On July 18, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively, motion for protective order. Dkt. 25. On July 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to extend deadline for discovery. Dkt. 27. On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff Leonid Kucherov (“Kucherov”) unilaterally filed a joint status report. Dkt. 29. On August 2, 2017, Defendants objected to the status report. Dkt. 30. On August 4, 2017, Kucherov responded to Defendants’ motions, Dkts. 32, 33, and Defendants replied to their motion ORDER - 1
*2 1 for an extension of time. Dkt. 31. On August 11, 2017, Defendants replied to their motion to dismiss. Dkt. 34.
Regarding the JSR, the Court finds that Kucherov’s failure to cooperate or comply with the Court’s order does not justify dismissal at this point. Kucherov, however, shall cooperate with Defendants and file a JSR no later than September 22, 2017. Failure to do so may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Regarding Defendants’ request for a protective order, general objections to allegedly excessive discovery are disfavored. On the other hand, the Court will grant relief to specific discovery requests on a request-by-request basis or excessive discovery based upon an actual showing that the requested discovery is disproportional. General allegations that responses will be burdensome does not meet the burden to protect a party from its discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion on this issue.
Regarding an extension of time to respond to discovery, the Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline. Therefore, Defendants must respond to Kucherov’s discovery requests no later than October 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
Dated this 7th day of September, 2017. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge ORDER - 2