Echologics, LLC v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01147
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ECHOLOGICS, LLC; MUELLER Case No.: 3:21-cv-01147-RBM-AHG INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MUELLER CANADA, LTD., JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND 14 Plaintiffs, DEADLINES TO RAISE 15 DISCOVERY DISPUTES WITH v. THE COURT 16 ORBIS INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC. 17 and ORBIS INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, [ECF No. 37] INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend deadline to raise discovery 27 disputes with the Court. ECF No. 37. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. 28 at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute regarding 1 Defendants’ responses to the Court’s attention by April 14, 2022, and any dispute 2 regarding Plaintiffs’ responses2 to the Court’s attention by April 22, 2022. ECF No. 37 at 3 2. The parties seek an order from the Court extending these deadlines by approximately 14 4 days. Id. at 3. 5 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 6 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 7 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 8 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 9 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 10 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 11 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 12 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 13 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 14 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 15 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 16 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 17 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 18 2018). 19 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they have engaged in 20 comprehensive and ongoing meet and confer efforts regarding each side’s discovery 21 responses. ECF No. 37-1 at 2–3; ECF No. 37 at 2. The parties represent that they are 22 continuing to collect and produce responsive information, and are continuing to confer 23 24 1 Defendants’ responses at issue here regard Plaintiffs’ Requests for the Production of 25 Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 18, 34, 35, 45, 46, and 60, which Defendants responded to on February 28, 2022. ECF No. 37 at 2. 26 27 2 Plaintiffs’ responses at issue here regard Defendants’ RFP Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 51, and Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8, which Plaintiffs 28 1 || cooperatively to resolve their discovery disputes without the Court’s intervention. ECF No. 2 ||37-1 at 2-3. The parties are also in the midst of negotiating a protective order, after which 3 || additional documents will be produced. /d. at 3. Hence, the parties seek an order from the 4 ||Court extending the deadline raise their disputes, to April 28 regarding Defendants’ 5 ||responses and to May 6 regarding Plaintiffs’ responses, to facilitate a cooperative 6 || resolution. /d. at 2. 7 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their 8 || disputes without Court intervention. The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the 9 || diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the 10 |}motion. The Court, however, finds it preferable for the parties to raise all disputes at the 11 |/same time. Thus, the Court ORDERS the parties to continue meeting and conferring in an 12 |/effort to resolve or narrow the disputes, and the parties must bring any unresolved 13 ||discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff's responses at issue and Defendants’ responses at 14 issue to the Court’s attention’ via one joint email by May 9, 2022. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. . J Worn Tt. Xovola 17 || Dated: April 15, 2022 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 30 > Tn the instant motion, the parties repeatedly state that they seek to extend the date to file discovery motions. ECF No. 37 at 3 (“the parties respectfully request that the Court enter 21 ||the order submitted herewith, extending the deadlines for the parties to bring discovery 99 motions’) (emphasis added); ECF No. 37-1 at 3 (“Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that an extension of 14 days to the deadlines for filing discovery motions is necessary ...”) 23 (emphasis added); id. (“[the parties] represent that cause exists to extend the deadlines to 54 file discovery motions by 14 days”) (emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties that the deadline at issue here is not the deadline to file a discovery motion, it is the deadline to 25 ||raise the dispute with the Court via joint email. See Chmb.R. at 3—4 (requiring that the 5 parties send the Court a joint email regarding the disputes no later than 45 days after the 6 response at issue 1s served). The Court reminds the parties that “/nJo discovery motion may 27 filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion conference, unless the movant has 28 obtained leave of Court. The Court may strike any discovery motion that is filed without complying with this process.” Chmb.R. at 3.