Beckman et al v. Arizona Canning Company, LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER Granting 52 Application for Extension of Time for Presentation of Disputes and Permission to Satisfy Meet and Confer Efforts by Telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 4/17/2020. (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 16cv2792-JAH(BLM)

WILLIAM BECKMAN AND LINDA GANDARA,
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and all
persons similarly situated,

13

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
PRESENTATION OF DISPUTES AND
PERMISSION TO SATISFY MEET AND
CONFER EFFORTS BY TELEPHONE

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

ARIZONA CANNING COMPANY, LLC AND
DOES 1-10

16

[ECF No. 52]

Defendants.

17
18
19

On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed an Application for Extension of Time for Presentation

20

of Disputes Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses and Permission to Satisfy Meet and Confer

21

Requirements by Telephone. ECF No. 52. Defendant seeks modification of Judge Major’s

22

Chambers Rule V(A) requiring counsel to meet and confer in person if they are in the same

23

county.

24

impacted counsels’ ability “to conduct a prompt and in-person meet and confer.” Id. at 4.

25

Defendant also seeks to continue the deadlines for bringing a motion to compel responses to

26

Defendant’s written discovery and supplementation of Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(e) disclosures to May

27

12, 2020. Id. In support, Defendant states that it has not received any discovery responses

28

from Plaintiff Gandara and that such responses were due to be served on March 30, 2020. Id.

Id. at 4.

In support, Defendant states that the current COVID-19 pandemic has

1

16cv2792-JAH(BLM)

1

at 2.

Defendant further states that there is a dispute regarding this deadline.1 Id. at n1.

2

Defendant also states that it received Plaintiff Beckman’s responses to Defendant’s written

3

discovery on March 27, 2020, identified numerous deficiencies, spoke with Plaintiffs’ counsel on

4

April 9, 2020, and followed up with a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 10, 2020, but that the

5

parties need additional time to meet and confer before initiating a dispute call with chambers.

6

Id. at 2-3. Finally, Defendant states that “the parties continue to have a dispute over Plaintiffs’

7

Rule 26(e) Disclosures.” Id. at 3-4.

8

Good cause appearing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as follows:

9

1. Counsel for the parties may satisfy the meet and confer requirements of Chambers

10

Rule V(A) telephonically.

11

2. Defendant’s deadline to bring a discovery dispute related to Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)

12

disclosures and Rule 26(e) obligations is continued to May 12, 2020.
3. Defendant’s deadline to bring a discovery dispute related to Plaintiff Beckman’s March

13

25, 2020 discovery responses is continued to May 12, 2020.

14

4. Defendant’s deadline to bring a discovery dispute related to Plaintiff Gandara’s not-

15

yet-served discovery responses is continued to May 12, 2020.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 4/17/2020

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff Gandara believed that Defendant extended the time for her to respond three times to
April 30, 2020, however, it is Defendant’s position that it only granted two extensions of time
and the responses were due on March 30, 2020. ECF No. 52 at n.1.
2

16cv2792-JAH(BLM)