Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER Granting #84 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Raise Discovery Disputes with the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 6/3/2021. (hmw)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

TODD HALL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al.,

16

v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

18

20
21
22
23

[ECF Nos. 84]

Defendant.

17

19

ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
TO RAISE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
WITH THE COURT

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend deadline to raise discovery
disputes with the Court. ECF No. 84. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R.
at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute regarding
Defendant’s responses1 to the Court’s attention by June 3, 2021. The parties seek an order
from the Court extending the deadline by approximately three weeks. ECF No. 84 at 2.
Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2

24
25
26
27
28

Defendant’s responses at issue here regard Plaintiff Kevin Branca’s First Set of Requests
for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories, which Defendant responded
to on April 19, 2021. ECF No. 84 at 2.
1

1
3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG

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”).

4

“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across

5

procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259

6

(9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to

7

amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth

8

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon

9

the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the

10

inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted).

11

Here, the parties have represented to the Court the that they have engaged in ongoing

12

meet and confer efforts regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff Kevin Branca’s

13

discovery requests. ECF No. 84 at 2. The parties represent that Defendant has agreed to

14

supplement several of its responses. Id. Additionally, the parties are discussing search

15

terms that will enable Defendant to locate and produce documents that are responsive to

16

Plaintiff Branca’s discovery requests. Id. Hence, the parties seek an order from the Court

17

extending the deadline raise their dispute, to facilitate a cooperative resolution.

18

The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their

19

dispute without Court intervention. Despite the joint motion’s untimeliness and other

20

shortcomings,2 the Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

First, by filing their joint motion on the day of the original deadline, the parties failed to
abide by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Compare ECF No. 84 (filed on June 3, 2021,
requesting an extension of a June 3 deadline) with Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll
requests for continuances must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days
before the affected date”) (emphasis added). Second, the parties failed to provide a
declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2
(requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking
the continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and
the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”).
2
3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG

1

to meet the good cause standard. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion. The parties

2

must bring any discovery dispute regarding the Defendant’s responses at issue3 to the

3

Court’s attention by June 24, 2021.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2021

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

See ECF No. 84 at 2.
3
3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG