Alcantara v. Archambeault
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to extend the deadline to raise discovery disputes arising from Defendants' responses to first sets of discovery requests. The Court granted the motion, extending the deadline to March 5, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Dispute Deadline granted“Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the request.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for modifying a scheduling order. The court cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent defining the standard and finds that the parties' diligence and lack of prior extensions satisfy the requirement. The decision follows logically from the recited facts and the cited law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the specific rule governing the motion (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), cites binding Ninth Circuit authority for the applicable standard, and applies that standard to the specific facts of the case (parties' diligence, no prior extensions). There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this routine procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ ALCANTARA, Case No.: 3:20cv756-DMS-AHG et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff-Petitioners, 13 MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY v. DISPUTE DEADLINE 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, San 15 [ECF No. 154] Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 16 and Customs Enforcement, et al., 17 Defendant-Respondents. 18 19 By joint motion, Plaintiffs request an extension of the January 21, 2020 deadline to 20 raise discovery disputes with the Court arising from Federal Defendants’ December 7, 2020 21 discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ first sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. 22 ECF No. 154. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask that the deadline be continued to March 5, 2021. 23 Id. 24 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 25 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 26 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 27 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 28 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 1 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 ||In this case, the parties have not requested any previous extensions. The record before the 3 ||Court demonstrates that they are meeting and conferring and diligently working together 4 || to resolve their discovery disputes. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT 5 || the request. 6 Plaintiff shall have until March 5, 2021 to raise any discovery disputes as to Federal 7 || Defendants’ discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ first sets of Interrogatories and Requests for 8 || Production. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 22, 2021 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28