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 FOR EXTENSION OF 14 TIME TO PRODUCE CERTAIN v. 15 DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., COURT’S MAY 12, 2021 ORDER 16

Defendant. 17 [ECF No. 88]

22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend the deadline for Defendant to 23 produce certain documents pursuant to the Court’s May 12, 2021 Order Granting in Part 24 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 80). ECF No. 88. Pursuant to that Order, the 25 Defendant was required to supplement its discovery responses by June 8, 2021. ECF No. 80 26 at 71. The parties seek an order from the Court extending that deadline to June 22 for some 27 documents, and to July 6 for other documents. ECF No. 88 at 4. 28 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 4 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). “Good cause” is a non- 5 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 6 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 7 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 8 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 9 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 10 for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) 11 (internal citation omitted). 12 Here, the parties have represented to the Court Defendant has been working 13 diligently to abide by the Court’s Order (ECF No. 80), which required Defendant to 14 supplement its discovery responses by June 8, 2021. ECF No. 88 at 2. The parties represent 15 that, by the deadline, Defendant produced all documents and information responsive to 16 four of the five categories of documents to be produced. Id. With respect to the fifth 17 category, Defendant produced certain documents by the deadline but needs more time to 18 finalize that production. Id. at 3. Hence, the parties seek an order from the Court extending 19 the deadlines “for Marriott to complete its production pursuant to the Order, with regard to 20 resort fee revenue data in Marriott’s possession, from June 8, 2021 to June 22, 2021,” and 21 “for Marriott to complete its production pursuant to the Order, with regard to resort fee and 22 other fee revenue data that Marriott must obtain from managed or franchised hotels, from 23 June 8, 2021 to July 6, 2021.” Id. at 4. 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together. Despite the joint 2 ||motion’s untimeliness and other shortcomings,! the Court finds that the parties have 3 demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard. Therefore, the Court 4 ||GRANTS the motion. Defendant shall complete its production pursuant to the Court’s 5 12 Order (ECF No. 80), with regard to resort fee revenue data in Marriott’s possession, 6 || by June 22, 2021. Defendant shall complete its production pursuant to the Court’s May 12 7 || Order (ECF No. 80), with regard to resort fee and other fee revenue data that Marriott must 8 || obtain from managed or franchised hotels, by July 6, 2021. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 10, 2021 □ _ Wem. Xoo Honorable Allison H. Goddard 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 ' 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. 88 (filed on June 8, 2021, 23 ||requesting an extension of a June 8 deadline) with Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll 54 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 25 ||declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 5 (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 27 ||the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”). One week ago, the Court 28 admonished the parties for the exact same filing deficiencies. See ECF No. 85 at 2 n.2. The Court expresses deep concern for counsel’s blatant disregard for its Chambers Rules.