Horton v. National Commercial Services et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines to Raise Discovery Issues With the Court (ECF No. 25 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 11/17/2020. (jdt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RACHEL HORTON, Case No.: 3:20-cv-863-W-AHG Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES (doing business as NCS Legal Services) and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 15 16 17 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINES TO RAISE DISCOVERY DISPUTES WITH THE COURT [ECF No. 25] Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the deadlines to raise discovery disputes with the Court. ECF No. 25. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute 28 1 3:20-cv-863-W-AHG 1 regarding Defendant Experian’s responses1 and Plaintiff’s responses2 to the Court’s 2 attention by December 4 and December 11, respectively. ECF Nos. 25 at 2–3. The parties 3 seek an order from the Court extending these deadlines by approximately one month. Id. 4 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 5 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 6 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 7 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). “Good cause” is a non- 8 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 9 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 10 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 11 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 12 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 13 for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end”). 14 Here, the parties have represented to the Court the that they have engaged in 15 comprehensive and ongoing meet and confer efforts regarding their respective responses, 16 and are in the process of providing supplemental responses. ECF No. 25 at 2–3. Hence, the 17 parties seek an order from the Court extending the deadline raise any disputes, to facilitate 18 a cooperative resolution. Id. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their 20 disputes without Court intervention. The Court also appreciates the level of detail in the 21 22 1 25 Defendant Experian’s responses at issue here regard Plaintiff’s first set of written interrogatories to Defendant Experian, Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Experian, and Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production to Defendant Experian, served on September 4, 2020, which Defendant Experian responded to on October 22, 2020. ECF No. 25 at 2. 26 2 23 24 27 28 Plaintiff’s responses at issue here regard Defendant Experian’s first set of written interrogatories to Plaintiff, Defendant Experian’s first set of requests for admissions to Plaintiff, and Defendant Experian’s first set of requests for production to Plaintiff, served on September 29, 2020, which Plaintiff responded to on October 29, 2020. Id. at 3. 2 3:20-cv-863-W-AHG 1 parties’ joint motion and declaration, as well as their compliance with the Court’s chambers 2 rules. The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet 3 the good cause standard, and therefore GRANTS the motion. The parties must bring any 4 discovery dispute regarding the discovery requests at issue here to the Court’s attention no 5 later than January 6, 2020. All other case management dates remain in place. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2020 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:20-cv-863-W-AHG

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?