Frias v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 18, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00675
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH FRIAS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00675-JO-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO CONTACT THE COURT 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., REGARDING DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. DISPUTE

16 [ECF No. 71] 17 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend the deadline to raise discovery 20 disputes with the Court. ECF No. 71. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see AHG.Chmb.R. 21 at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute regarding 22 Defendant’s responses1 to the Court’s attention by January 18, 2024. The parties seek an 23 order from the Court extending the deadline by approximately two weeks. ECF No. 71 at 2. 24 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 25 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 26 27 1 Defendant’s responses at issue here regard Plaintiff’s fifth set of special interrogatories, which Plaintiff propounded on October 19, 2023, and Defendant responded to on 28 1 request’); see also FED. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 2 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time’). 3 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 || procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 || (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 ||amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. .. . If that party was not diligent, the 9 || inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 10 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they are actively meeting and 11 ||}conferring on regarding Defendant’s discovery responses, and have “reached a 12 ||compromise reached a compromise whereby County agreed to complete further 13 ||investigation in an effort to determine whether the County needed to supplement its 14 response.” ECF No. 71 at 2. Hence, the parties seek an order from the Court extending the 15 || deadline raise their dispute by two weeks, to facilitate a cooperative resolution. Id. 16 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their 17 disputes without judicial intervention. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the 18 ||motion. Thus, the parties must bring any discovery dispute regarding Defendant’s 19 |/responses to Plaintiff's fifth set of special interrogatories to the Court’s attention in the 20 || manner described in ECF No. 69 at 2 n.1 no later than February 1, 2024. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 18, 2024 23 _ Apion. Honorable Allison H. Goddard 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28