Jody Cruz, Michelle Robichaux, and Brett Plowfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progenesis, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01789
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JODY CRUZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01789-BJC-AHG MICHELLE ROBICHAUX, and 11 ORDER GRANTING JOINT BRETT PLOWFIELD, MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 12 individually and on behalf of all others TO NOTIFY COURT OF similarly situated, 13 DISCOVERY DISPUTE Plaintiffs, 14 [ECF No. 64] v. 15 PROGENESIS, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the deadline notify the Court 21 of a discovery dispute. ECF No. 64. The parties seek an order from the Court extending 22 their deadline to raise a discovery dispute by approximately two weeks. Id. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines set forth by the Court must demonstrate good 24 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 25 court may, for good cause, extend the time”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for 26 continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non- 27 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 28 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 1 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 2 ||the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 3 || 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 4 ||for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) 5 || Gnternal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently 6 ||to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV- 7 || 16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 8 Here, the parties represent to the Court that they need more time to meet and confer 9 |/regarding Plaintiffs responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. ECF No. 64. 10 ||Specifically, the parties have met and conferred, and Defendant agreed to produce the 11 ||}remaining discovery requested by Plaintiff. Jd. at 2. Defendant’s counsel is currently in 12 || trial in another matter, and anticipates producing the remaining discovery may take slightly 13 || longer than the Court’s current deadline of October 25, 2025. Jd. The parties also note that 14 || they are engaging in productive settlement discussions. Jd. As such, the parties request a 15 || two-week extension, to November 7, 2025, to raise the discovery disputes with the Court. 16 The Court appreciates that the parties are working together to resolve their disputes 17 || without judicial intervention. Upon due consideration of the parties’ motion and the fact 18 || discovery cutoff, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion to extend the discovery dispute 19 ||deadline. Thus, the parties must bring any discovery disputes related to the 20 || August 28, 2025, Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to the Court’s attention in the manner described 21 Paragraph5 of the Scheduling Order, (see ECF No. 53 at 3), no later than 22 || November 7, 2025. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: October 24, 2025 05 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28