Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DANIEL BRAVENEC, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01619-JO-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION 14 v. 15 HAGERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, [ECF No. 18] 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for continuance. ECF No. 18. The parties 27 seek to extend the document production deadline, from August 24, 2026, to 28 September 25, 2026. Id. 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified 4 time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in 5 determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 6 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non- 8 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 9 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 10 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 11 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry 12 is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not 13 diligent, the inquiry should end”). 14 Here, the parties represent to the Court that Defendant has encountered technical 15 difficulties in transmitting its production of Electronically Stored Information to Plaintiff. 16 ECF No. 18 at 2. Defendant anticipates that an additional 30 days will be needed to rectify 17 the issues. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff has not yet produced his medical records, and is 18 waiting for the issuance of a protective order to do so. Id. at 2–3. As such, the parties 19 request a one-month extension of the document production deadline, from 20 August 24, 2026, to September 25, 2026. Id. at 3. 21 First, the Court notes that the joint motion is deficient. By filing the motion on 22 August 26, 2026—two days after the August 24, 2026, deadline—the parties failed to 23 follow the Court’s Chambers Rules. See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll requests for 24 continuances must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before 25 the affected date”) (emphasis added). The parties do not address, or acknowledge, their 26 delay. Second, the Court has concerns regarding the parties’ compliance with its 27 July 17, 2026, Order; the need for a protective order before production should have been 28 discussed during the required July 31, 2026, meet and confer but instead, almost a month 1 later, no protective order has been drafted. See ECF No. 18 at 3 (“Plaintiff needs additional 2 time to send a protective order to Defendant and have it entered by the Court before 3 producing responsive documents”). 4 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, the Court appreciates that the parties are 5 working together and finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the joint motion (ECF 6 No. 18) as follows: 7 1. By September 3, 2026, the parties must do one of the following: 8 a. If the parties reach an agreement on the terms of the stipulated 9 protective order, they must file a Joint Motion for Protective Order. The 10 Court reminds the parties that they must include the undersigned’s 11 required provisions in their protective order. See AHG.Chmb.R. at 4. 12 The Court also reminds counsel that they must email a copy of the 13 proposed order in Word format to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. 14 Id. at 5. 15 b. If the parties have not reached an agreement on the terms of the 16 stipulated protective order, they must submit a joint email to the Court 17 (not filed) (to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) outlining their 18 disputes and positions. The parties must attach the disputed protective 19 order to the email, highlighting the section(s) where the parties 20 disagree. 21 2. The parties must complete the production of their document exchange by 22 September 25, 2026. 23 6. The all-day, in-person Settlement Conference scheduled for 24 November 9, 2026, is RESET for December 4, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before the Magistrate 25 Judge Allison H. Goddard on the fifth floor of the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 26 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. 27 a. If the parties send a joint email to the Court (to 28 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) no later than November 20, 2026, 1 containing a firm date for private mediation and the name of the 2 mediator, the Settlement Conference will come off calendar. 3 b. The Court requires the personal, in-person attendance of all named 4 parties, party representatives with full1 settlement authority, including 5 claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) 6 responsible for the litigation at the conference. 7 c. For planning purposes, the parties should expect that the Settlement 8 Conference will last until approximately 5:00 p.m. 9 d. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written settlement proposal, which 10 must include a specific demand amount, no later than 11 November 9, 2026. The defendant must respond to the plaintiff in 12 writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer 13 discussion. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court on 14 these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include their written 15 settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference 16 Statements to the Court. 17 e. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via 18 videoconference, or by phone no later than November 17, 2026. 19 / / 20 21 22 1 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the Settlement Conference. 23 Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement 24 options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person 25 needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a 26 party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595– 27 97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the 28 conference before agreeing to any settlement does not have full authority. 1 f. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 2 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 3 November 24, 2026. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via 4 email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of 5 the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge 6 Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the 7 court website at 8 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Ma 9 ndatory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 10 g. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter 1] for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 12 November 24, 2026. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email 13 to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose 14 to prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter 15 must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement 16 Conference Rules. 17 h. No later than November 24, 2026, each party must submit to the Court 18 via email (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, 19 titles, and email addresses of all attendees. Court staff will then email 20 all participants detailed instructions regarding the location of the 21 Court’s conference rooms. 22 i. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers 23 Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate Judge 24 Allison H. Goddard. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: August 27, 2026 ) Wie +H. 4 uh l A 27 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 28 United States Magistrate Judge