Carlborg v. Department of Navy

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-02073 · 2024-07-12 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
On appeal: Carlborg v. United States Department of Defense (2026-08-04) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
Panel: Allison H. Goddard (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:28Z · confidence high

The court considered the parties' joint motion to extend the summary judgment briefing schedule by five months due to the need to re-evaluate FOIA releases and agency staffing shortages. The court granted the motion in part, issuing a First Amended Scheduling Order that set new deadlines for the summary judgment briefing but did not grant the full five-month extension requested.

What the court decided	The model
Joint Motion for Extension of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule granted in part “Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the parties’ joint motion and issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order”	agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and cited Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. for the proposition that the inquiry focuses on the moving party's diligence. The court found that while the parties were diligent, the reasons provided (re-evaluation of FOIA releases and staffing shortages) did not justify the full five-month extension requested. The court exercised its discretion to set a shorter extension, which is a permissible outcome under the good cause standard. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order.

What the court decided

The model

Joint Motion for Extension of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule granted in part

“Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the parties’ joint motion and issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order”

agree with court
The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and cited *Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.* for the proposition that the inquiry focuses on the moving party's diligence. The court found that while the parties were diligent, the reasons provided (re-evaluation of FOIA releases and staffing shortages) did not justify the full five-month extension requested. The court exercised its discretion to set a shorter extension, which is a permissible outcome under the good cause standard. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cites appropriate authority (*Johnson*) to support the analysis. It applies the standard to the facts presented (diligence of parties, reasons for delay) and reaches a defensible result by granting a partial extension. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ROBERT S. CARLBORG, Case No.: 3:23-cv-02073-RBM-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER:

14 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY and MOTION FOR EXTENSION, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 16 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED Defendants. 17 SCHEDULING ORDER 18 [ECF No. 20] 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the summary judgment 23 briefing schedule. ECF No. 20. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the 24 summary judgment filing deadlines by approximately five months. Id. 25 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 26 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 27 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 19 at 2 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates 28 [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”). 1 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 2 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 3 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 4 The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . 7 . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 8 Here, the parties represent to the Court that Defendant “determined that some of the 9 releases to Plaintiff were likely overredacted, and that information that is not subject to 10 FOIA’s exemptions was withheld.” ECF No. 20 at 2; ECF No. 20-1 at 2–3. Thus, 11 Defendants’ counsel “recommended that the releases to Plaintiff be reevaluated by the 12 original releasing office(s) so that non-exempt segregable information can be provided to 13 the Plaintiff[,]” which will take additional time. ECF No. 20-1 at 2; ECF No. 20 at 2. 14 However, the Navy agency counsel has been impacted by staffing shortages and has 15 “multiple quickly approaching deadlines for [another case in the district] has prevented 16 him from completing the supporting materials for the FOIA MSJ in this case.” ECF No. 17 20-1 at 2. As such, the parties request a five-month extension of the summary judgment 18 briefing deadlines in this matter. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together diligently in this 20 case. However, the Court does not find good cause to grant the entire extension that the 21 parties seek. Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN 22 PART the parties’ joint motion and issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order: 23 1. Defendants must file their Motion for Summary Judgment by 24 November 20, 2024. 25 2. Plaintiff must file his Opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion 26 by December 18, 2024. 27 3. Defendants must file a Reply in support of their summary judgment motion 28 by January 8, 2025. 1 4. Upon review of the briefing, the Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro will 2 |/either take the motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 3 7.1(d)(1), or will hold a hearing. If Judge Montenegro decides to hear oral argument, she 4 || will issue a separate written order setting the date and time. 5 5. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 6 ||shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. 7 || No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 8 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 9 || and a table of authorities cited. 10 6. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), if an opposing party fails to file opposition 11 || papers in the time and manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute 12 ||a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the Court. Accordingly, 13 parties are ordered to abide by the terms of Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) or otherwise face the 14 || prospect of any pretrial motion being granted as an unopposed motion pursuant to Local 15 |} Rule 7.1()(3)(c). 16 7. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 17 || and magistrate judge. 18 8. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 19 || shown. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 12, 2024 H. Myolare 22 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28