Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 390

ORDER DENYING 379 PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL; LIFTING STAY OF DEADLINE. Motions to Compel due on or before 10/5/2018. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/3/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ROBERT HEATH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS TO COMPEL; LIFTING STAY OF DEADLINE 12 13 On September 25, 2018, Plaintiffs administratively moved to extend the deadline to file 14 motions to compel from September 28, 2018 to October 5, 2018. Mot. at 1, ECF 379. Plaintiffs 15 argued that Defendant had refused to meet and confer sufficiently in advance of the September 28 16 deadline to allow them adequate time to draft their motions to compel. See generally id. Because 17 Defendant’s opposition was not due until October 1, 2018, the Court stayed the deadline to file 18 motions to compel until after it decided the present motion. See ECF 383. In response, Defendant 19 argued that Plaintiffs’ predicament was self-inflicted because Plaintiffs waited until the final day 20 possible to serve written discovery on Defendant, thus creating the shortest possible window in 21 which to meet and confer and draft motions to compel—7 days. See generally Opp., ECF 387. 22 Because Defendant’s lead counsel was in trial but was required to attend the meet and confer 23 under Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order, Defendant could not meet and confer sufficiently in 24 advance of the deadline to satisfy Plaintiffs. Id. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ service of 25 discovery requests on the last possible day demonstrates a lack of diligence that does not warrant 26 extension of the deadline. Id. at 3–5. 27 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 1 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Thomason v. City of Fowler, No. 1:13-CV-00336-AWI, 2 2014 WL 4436385, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014). The Court agrees with Google that Plaintiffs 3 have not demonstrated good cause for extending the motion to compel deadline, given that their 4 service of discovery requests on the final possible day forced them to request a meet and confer 5 with Google before Google had even had a chance to serve its responses. See Opp. at 1–2. As 6 such, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the stay of the deadline is LIFTED. The Court granted 7 the stay on September 26, 2018, two days before the September 28 deadline. As such, any 8 motions to compel in this case are due on or before October 5, 2018, two days from the issuance 9 of this order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: October 3, 2018 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?