Anokiwave, Inc. v. Rebeiz ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANOKIWAVE, INC., Case No.: 3:18-cv-629-JLS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT 14 GABRIEL REBEIZ, et al., SPECTRABEAM LLC’S DEADLINE 15 Defendants. TO RAISE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 16 [ECF No. 103] 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to for Order Extending Defendnat 19 SpectraBeam LLC’s Deadline to Raise Discovery Dispute. ECF No. 103. Under the 20 Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. at 3), the parties would have been required to bring any 21 discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s responses1 to the Court’s attention by 22 November 21, 2019. Here, the parties move for a 15-day continuance. ECF No. 103 at 2. 23 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. 24 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s responses at issue here regard Defendant SpectraBeam’s fourth set of written requests for production of documents, served on September 6, 2019, which Plaintiff 28 1 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 2 ||request’’); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good 3 || cause and with the judge’s consent”); Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 4 ||done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time’). 5 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 6 || procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 7 || (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 8 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 9 || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 10 || the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. .. . If that party was not diligent, the 11 |/inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 12 The parties have represented to the Court that they have engaged in ongoing meet 13 || and confer efforts regarding Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant SprectraBeam’s discovery 14 requests. See ECF No. 103-1 at 2. To facilitate the meet-and-confer process, and in light of 15 || the pending Thanksgiving holiday, the parties contend that a 15-day extension would allow 16 || the parties to resolve a number of the disputes at issue without court intervention. /d. 17 The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet 18 ||the good cause standard. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion, and orders that the 19 || parties bring any discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff's responses to the Court’s attention 20 || by December 6, 2019. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: November 15, 2019 7 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard Honorable Allison H. Goddard 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28