SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 17, 2024
• Docket: 5:23-cv-06543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SVB FINANCIAL GROUP, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FOIA CLAIM 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, [ECF No. 9] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) moves the Court for an order 14 extending time for the FDIC to answer or respond to Count VIII of Plaintiff SVB Financial 15 Group’s (“SVBFG”) Complaint, which alleges a claim for failure to produce records under the 16 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). ECF No. 9 (“Mot.”). The FDIC seeks to extend the time 17 for it to respond to the FOIA claim by 30 days such that it must respond to all counts in the 18 complaint on the same date. Id. at 2. SVBFG opposes the motion. ECF No. 10 (“Opp.”). 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 states that “[t]he United States, a United States agency, 20 or a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity must serve an answer to a 21 complaint, counterclaim, or crossclaim within 60 days after service on the United States attorney.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2). However, FOIA provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of 23 law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this 24 subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such 25 complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown.” 5 U.S.C. 26 § 552(a)(4)(C). Both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and FOIA allow the Court to extend 27 deadlines to respond to a complaint for “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); 5 U.S.C. 1 Loc. 572 Pension Fund v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. CO1-20418JW, 2005 WL 1459555, at *3 (N.D. 2 |} Cal. June 21, 2005). “[R]equests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has 3 passed should ‘normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking 4 |} relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Ahanchian vy. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 || (9th Cir. 2010). 6 The FDIC argues that it needs additional time to determine whether it will answer or move 7 to dismiss the FOIA claim, that it would be prejudiced without an extension because it would have 8 to draft two distinct motions on the same complaint, and the SVBFG will suffer no prejudice. 9 Mot. at 3-4. SVBFG argues that the FDIC has already ignored its FOIA request for six months, 10 || that the FDIC’s argument that it needs additional time is not credible, that the FOIA claim can be 11 briefed separately from the other causes of action, and that the FDIC’s delay in responding to the 12 || FOIA request demonstrates bad faith. Opp. at 3-4. 13 The Court finds good cause to grant the FDIC’s request for a modest extension of time to 14 || respond to the FOIA claim. Contrary to SVBFG’s argument, nothing in the record suggests that 15 the FDIC is seeking this brief extension in bad faith. Even if SVBFG is correct that the FDIC a 16 || delayed in responding to its FOIA requests, this delay does not mean that the FDIC seeks this 3 17 extension in bad faith. More importantly, SVGFB has not raised any reason why it would be 18 || prejudiced by a delay of only 30 days. “Prejudice requires greater harm than simply that relief 19 would delay resolution of the case.” Chow v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-04997-LHK, 2018 WL 20 1335995, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1196 21 (9th Cir. 2009)). Indeed, the Court finds that the parties will benefit and judicial economy will be 22 served if the FDIC is permitted to respond to the entire complaint in one document. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: January 17, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge