Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a third joint motion seeking a two-week extension of the deadline for the defendant to produce specific revenue documents from franchised and managed hotels. The court granted the motion, extending the production deadline to August 6, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the third joint motion for extension of time to produce certain documents“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion. Defendant shall complete production pursuant to the Court’s May 12 Order (ECF No. 80), with regard to resort fee and other fee revenue data that Marriott must obtain from managed or franchised hotels, by August 6, 2021.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and the Local Rules. The parties filed the motion one week before the deadline, explaining that they had requested documents from approximately 200 hotels by July 16 to allow processing time. The court found good cause based on the logistical necessity of obtaining documents from third-party hotels and the parties' diligence in filing the extension request within the court's specified one-week window. This follows standard procedural practice for discovery extensions. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause under Rule 6(b)) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority defining that standard. The factual basis for the extension (logistical delay in obtaining documents from third-party hotels) is a common and accepted reason for discovery extensions. The court's reliance on the parties' diligence in filing the motion within the court's specified window supports the grant. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural discovery order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf Case No.: 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG of all others similarly situated, et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING THIRD JOINT Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 13 TIME TO PRODUCE CERTAIN v. 14 DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., COURT’S MAY 12, 2021 ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 [ECF No. 102]
17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ third joint motion to extend the deadline for 19 Defendant to produce certain documents pursuant to the Court’s May 12, 2021 Order 20 Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 80). ECF No. 88. Pursuant to that 21 Order, Defendant was required to supplement its discovery responses by June 8, 2021. ECF 22 No. 80 at 71. Since then, the Court has granted two joint motions to extend the deadline for 23 Defendant to complete its production, and the current deadline is July 23, 2021. See ECF 24 Nos. 90, 98. Now, the parties ask for another two-week extension, until August 6, 2021, 25 for Defendant to produce any revenue documents in the possession of its franchised and 26 managed hotels that Defendant has not received by the existing production deadline. See 27 ECF No. 102. 28 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 1 ||(stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 2 ||request’’); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 3 || specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time’). “Good cause” is a non- 4 ||rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 5 || Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 6 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 7 ||the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 8 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 9 ||for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) 10 || (internal citation omitted). 11 In the joint motion, filed one week prior to the production deadline on July 16, 2021, 12 || the parties explain that Defendant had asked all of the approximately 200 hotels managed 13 franchised by Defendant to produce responsive documents by July 16, 2021, so that 14 || Defendant would have time to process the documents by the July 23 production deadline. 15 |] ECF No. 102 at 4. Although Defendant remains hopeful that it will be able to meet the 16 existing July 23 production deadline, the parties (recognizing that July 16 also marked the 17 || Court’s one-week deadline to seek an extension) ask the Court to extend the deadline to 18 || August 6, 2021 “out of an abundance of caution|.]” Jd. 19 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion. Defendant shall complete 20 production pursuant to the Court’s May 12 Order (ECF No. 80), with regard to resort 21 || fee and other fee revenue data that Marriott must obtain from managed or franchised hotels, 22 ||by August 6, 2021. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 35 Dated: July 20, 2021 26 _ Anwar. □□ Honorable Allison H. Goddard 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28