Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf Case No.: 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG of all others similarly situated, et al., 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiffs, MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 14 TO RAISE DISCOVERY DISPUTES v. 15 WITH THE COURT MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 16 [ECF Nos. 84] Defendant. 17

18 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend deadline to raise discovery 19 disputes with the Court. ECF No. 84. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. 20 at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute regarding 21 Defendant’s responses1 to the Court’s attention by June 3, 2021. The parties seek an order 22 from the Court extending the deadline by approximately three weeks. ECF No. 84 at 2. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 24 25

26 27 1 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 28 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 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, 24 requesting an extension of a June 3 deadline) with Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll 25 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 26 declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 27 (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 28 1 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 issue’ to the 3 || Court’s attention by June 24, 2021. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 3, 2021 Morn H. Honorable Allison H. Goddard 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIs Seo ECF No. 84 at 2.