Erhart v. Bofi Holding Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
BofI Holding, Inc. filed an unopposed ex parte application to seal its filing containing private medical information and to continue the trial from February 1, 2022, to April 26, 2022, citing a recent medical emergency. The Court conditionally granted the application, sealing the documents, continuing the trial subject to the parties filing a joint status report by January 28, 2022, and amending the trial time limit to 30 hours per side.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting BofI's request to seal the Application and supporting declaration.“The Court finds this standard is met and seals the Application.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard, which is the correct standard for sealing documents containing private medical information that do not fall under specific statutory exceptions. The order recites that the information is private medical information, which generally satisfies the good cause requirement in the Ninth Circuit. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Conditionally granting BofI's request to continue the trial from February 1, 2022, to April 26, 2022.“The Court conditionally continues trial from February 1, 2022, to April 26, 2022.” | agree with court The court found 'good cause' based on extenuating circumstances (a medical emergency) that were not self-inflicted and would likely prejudice the defendant if trial proceeded. The court imposed conditions to ensure the case progresses expeditiously, which is a reasonable exercise of discretion to manage the docket while accommodating the emergency. The decision is supported by the recited facts. |
Amending the trial time limit to 30 hours per side (60 hours total).“The Court clarifies that the anticipated time limit for trial is 30 hours per side, for a total of 60 hours.” | agree with court The court identified a discrepancy between its previous minute order (15 hours per side) and its intent (30 hours per side) given the anticipated length of the trial. Correcting a clerical or inadvertent error in a minute order to reflect the court's actual intent is within the court's authority. The decision is consistent with the court's stated intent. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the 'good cause' standard for sealing, citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. The decision to continue the trial is supported by the recited extenuating circumstances and the court's discretion to manage its docket. The conditions imposed are reasonable and designed to prevent further delays. The correction of the trial time limit is a proper exercise of the court's authority to correct its own orders. The reasoning is sound and addresses the issues raised in the application.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES MATTHEW ERHART, Case No. 15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS 11 consolidated with Plaintiff, 15-cv-02353-BAS-NLS 12 ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. GRANTING BOFI HOLDING, 14 BOFI HOLDING, INC., INC.’S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL AND 15 Defendant. CONTINUE (ECF No. 249)
16 And Consolidated Case 17 18 19 After repeated delays in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, trial is set for 20 February 1, 2022. Previously, the Court denied a request to continue trial and 21 emphasized that this 2015 case needs to be resolved expeditiously. (ECF Nos. 243, 22 247.) Now before the Court is BofI Holding, Inc’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application 23 to Seal and Continue based on extenuating circumstances—a medical emergency. 24 (ECF No. 249.) The Application raises several issues. 25 Request to Seal. BofI seeks to seal the Application and its supporting 26 declaration because they reveal private medical information. The “good cause” 27 standard applies to this request because the information lodged under seal is not 1 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The Court finds this standard is met and 2 seals the Application. 3 Request to Continue. The Court is reluctant to delay the trial. It is already in 4 the process of screening potential jurors and preparing for trial. However, BofI 5 supports its Application with extenuating circumstances that only came to light a few 6 days ago. Proceeding with trial as scheduled would likely prejudice the Bank. And 7 this prejudice was not self-inflicted. (See ECF No. 249.) 8 On balance, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial; provided, 9 however, that the parties are able to progress on outstanding trial items. Therefore, 10 the Court conditionally grants the request to continue. The continuance is 11 conditioned upon the parties jointly providing dates for interim status conferences to 12 discuss a proposed verdict form, jury instructions, and objections to deposition 13 designations. Further, at least one attorney per side with authority to argue on the 14 client’s behalf must appear in person at these status conferences. And the Court 15 admonishes the parties that it will apply an even more exacting standard to any future 16 requests to continue. 17 Trial Time. The Application highlights that the Court’s minute order set the 18 time limit for trial at 15 hours per side, for a total of 30 hours. Given the anticipated 19 length of trial—3 weeks—the Court intended to give each party 30 hours per side, 20 for a total of 60 hours. The Court amends its minute entry accordingly. 21 * * * 22 Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY GRANTS BofI’s Unopposed 23 Ex Parte Application to Seal and Continue. (ECF No. 249.) The Court grants BofI’s 24 request to seal. The Clerk shall file under seal the unredacted versions of BofI’s 25 Application and supporting declaration. No copies are necessary. 26 The Court conditionally continues trial from February 1, 2022, to April 26, 27 2022. The Court has a criminal trial set that may overlap with this date. Therefore, 1 Further, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer about scheduling three status 2 ||conferences. First, the Court will hold a status conference to discuss the proposed 3 verdict form.! Second, the Court will hold a status conference to discuss jury 4 |linstructions. Third, the Court will hold a status conference to discuss objections to 5 ||deposition designations. The parties shall file a joint status report that suggests 6 ||possible dates and times for these conferences between now and trial, with one 7 ||conference per month in February, March, and April. Provided the parties file this 8 ||joint status report no later than January 28, 2022, trial will be continued from 9 ||February 1, 2022, to April 26, 2022. 10 Finally, the Court clarifies that the anticipated time limit for trial is 30 hours 11 per side, for a total of 60 hours. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 A .. , 14 DATED: January 20, 2022 asf rd A 5 Hipha. 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || ———— ' As previously ordered, the proposed verdict form is due by 8:30 a.m. on February 1, 2022.