Horton v. National Commercial Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RACHEL HORTON, Case No.: 3:20-cv-863-W-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINES TO RAISE 14 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISCOVERY DISPUTES WITH THE SERVICES (doing business as NCS 15 COURT Legal Services) and EXPERIAN 16 INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., [ECF No. 25] 17 Defendant.

24 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the deadlines to raise 25 discovery disputes with the Court. ECF No. 25. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see 26 Chmb.R. at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute 27 28 1 regarding Defendant Experian’s responses and Plaintiff’s responses to the Court’s 2 attention by December 4 and December 11, respectively. ECF Nos. 25 at 2–3. The parties 3 seek an order from the Court extending these deadlines by approximately one month. Id. 4 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 5 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 6 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 7 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). “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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 12 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 13 for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end”). 14 Here, the parties have represented to the Court the that they have engaged in 15 comprehensive and ongoing meet and confer efforts regarding their respective responses, 16 and are in the process of providing supplemental responses. ECF No. 25 at 2–3. Hence, the 17 parties seek an order from the Court extending the deadline raise any disputes, to facilitate 18 a cooperative resolution. Id. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their 20 disputes without Court intervention. The Court also appreciates the level of detail in the 21 22 1 Defendant Experian’s responses at issue here regard Plaintiff’s first set of written 23 interrogatories to Defendant Experian, Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Experian, and Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production to Defendant 24 Experian, served on September 4, 2020, which Defendant Experian responded to on 25 October 22, 2020. ECF No. 25 at 2. 26 2 Plaintiff’s responses at issue here regard Defendant Experian’s first set of written 27 interrogatories to Plaintiff, Defendant Experian’s first set of requests for admissions to Plaintiff, and Defendant Experian’s first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, served 28 1 || parties’ joint motion and declaration, as well as their compliance with the Court’s chambers 2 ||rules. The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet 3 good cause standard, and therefore GRANTS the motion. The parties must bring any 4 discovery dispute regarding the discovery requests at issue here to the Court’s attention no 5 than January 6, 2020. All other case management dates remain in place. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: November 17, 2020 ; wormnH. Kavala Honorable Allison H. Goddard 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28