Bica v. Genworth Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BEVERLY BICA, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG

12 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO NOTIFY COURT OF 14 GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE DISCOVERY DISPUTE COMPANY, 15 Defendant/Counter-Claimant. [ECF No. 36] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the deadline notify the Court 23 of a discovery dispute. ECF Nos. 36. The parties seek an order from the Court extending 24 their deadline to raise a discovery dispute by approximately 30 days. ECF No. 36 at 3. 25 Parties seeking to continue deadlines set forth by the Court must demonstrate good 26 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 27 court may, for good cause, extend the time”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for 28 continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non- 1 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 2 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 3 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 4 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 5 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 6 for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) 7 (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently 8 to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV- 9 16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 10 Here, the parties represent to the Court that they need more time to meet and confer 11 regarding Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. ECF No. 36. 12 Specifically, the parties have exchanged emails regarding Defendant’s disputes and plan 13 to meet and confer on August 29, 2025. Id. at 3–4. As such, the parties request a 30-day 14 extension, to September 29, 2025, because Plaintiff expressed a “willing[ness] to resolve 15 multiple disputes to avoid Court intervention” and the parties seek “to avoid raising 16 unnecessary disputes with the Court [and] to promote judicial efficiency[.]” Id. 17 The Court appreciates that the parties are working together to resolve their disputes 18 without judicial intervention. Upon due consideration of the parties’ motion and the fact 19 discovery cutoff, the Court GRANTS IN PART the parties’ motion to extend the 20 discovery dispute deadline. Thus, the parties must bring any discovery dispute regarding 21 Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s first set of Interrogatories and first set of Requests for 22 Production to the Court’s attention in the manner described in Paragraph 3 of the 23 Scheduling Order, (see ECF No. 32 at 2), no later than September 24, 2025. However, the 24 Court expresses concern that Plaintiff has not been responding to Defendant’s 25 correspondence and, in doing so, has caused unnecessary delay. See ECF No. 36 at 2 26 (Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s July 28, 2025, letter or Defendant’s 27 August 15, 2025, correspondence. Defendant reached out a third time, on August 25, 2025, 28 with a draft of a joint email to Judge Goddard, to which Plaintiff responded on 1 || August 26, 2025). Thus, if at any point during the extension period Plaintiff does not 2 ||respond to Defendant within two days, Defendant may contact the Court via email at 3 || efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov to avoid further delay. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: August 27, 2025 . JpwornH. Xho Honorable Allison H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28