Panacea Plant Sciences Inc v. Garland

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8

9 PANACEA PLANT SCIENCES, INC., and Case No. C24-477RSM DAVID HELDRETH, CEO, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 11 Plaintiffs, EXTENSION OF TIME

12 v. 13 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official 14 capacity as U.S. Attorney General, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc. (“PPS”)’s 18 one-page, ex parte Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #11. 19 On April 16, 2024, the Court found that PPS was not represented by counsel in 20 violation of LCR 83.2 and directed it “to secure counsel and for that counsel to make an 21 22 appearance in this case prior to the filing of future motions or requests for relief, and in any 23 event no later than May 16, 2024.” Dkt. #9 at 2. PPS now moves to extend that deadline to 24 June 20. Dkt. #11 at 1. The only explanation for this request is “we are experiencing difficulty 25 finding those who wish to litigate against the government.” Id. No other facts are provided. 26 There is no attached declaration. 27 28 “A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in 1 2 advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline,” LCR 3 7(j), and a motion for relief should be granted where “good cause” exists. See Allstate Indem. 4 Co. v. Lindquist, No. C20-1508JLR, 2022 WL 1443676, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2022). 5 When seeking an extension, the good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the 6 party seeking the extension. Id. 7 8 PPS has failed to set forth any evidence of efforts to obtain counsel. PPS does not 9 engage with the good cause standard. The record appears to indicate that PPS has known about 10 the potential for litigation for some time. The Court has good reason to insist on PPS being 11 represented by counsel, as this party has already filed several Motions in this case ex parte 12 13 despite already being in contact with Defendants through the parallel regulatory matter, and 14 because the person drafting briefs on behalf of PPS is also a Plaintiff in the case. 15 The Court finds that PPS has failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking this relief, or 16 good cause to request it. 17 Accordingly, having considered the above Motion and the remainder of the record, the 18 19 Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that PPS’s Motion, Dkt. #11, is DENIED. 20 DATED this 6th day of May, 2024. 21 A 22 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27