Tsatas v. Airborne Wireless Network, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 5, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || MICHAEL C. VAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3876 2 || GARRETT R. CHASE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14498 3 || SHUMWAY VAN 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 4 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Telephone: (702) 478-7770 5 || Facsimile: (702) 478-7779 Email: michael@shumwayvan.com 6 garrett@shumwayvan.com 7 || Attorneys and Local Counsel for Plaintiffs 8 |} FARHAD NOVIAN (California Bar No. 118129; admitted pro hac vice) farhad@novianlaw.com 9 || ANDREW B. GOODMAN (California Bar No. 267972; admitted pro hac vice) agoodman@novianlaw.com 10 |} ALEXANDER B. GURA (California Bar No. 305096; admitted pro hac vice) gura@novianlaw.com 11 || NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1201 2 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-1222 & Facsimile: (310) 553-0222 5 3 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 = 16 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2 17 |! MARIA TSATAS, an individual; LEONIDAS| CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-2045-RFB-BNW 18 VALKANAS, as trustee of the KEET TRUST 2 dated August 1, 2015; RAYMOND BARAZ, py aINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THI an individual; PASCAL ABDALLAH, a 19 individual; JIMMY TSOUTSOURAS, a SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY) individual; FOTINI VENETIS, an individual; PLAN TO CONTINUE ALL DATES BY 181 20 || NICHOLAS TSOUTSOURAS, an individual;| DAYS CONNIE TSOUTSOURAS, an_ individual; RAYMONDE KANHA, __ individual; S dR t ALFRED BEKHIT, an individual; JACQUEZ| (Second Request) 22 || ELBAZ, an individual; MARTINE BENEZRA, an_ individual; JAMES PJ [Declaration of Andrew B. Goodman ane 23 || CARROLL, an individual; DAVID CHIN, an! Proposed Order filed concurrently] individual; JENNIFER MILLS, an individual; 94 || PAUL SUBLETT, an individual; ANDRE SUBLETT, an _ individual; MANOLIS 25 KOSTAKIS, an individual; ESTHE GEORGAKOPOULOS, an individual; EVAGELIA KOSTAKIS, □□ individual; DENIS PARSONS, an individual; SOFI KARDARAS, □□ individual; JIMMY || ASMAKLIS, an individual; CORRADINO 3g GALUPPO, an individual; DENIS KOPITAS,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 || individual; GEORGE TSATAS, an individual; PANAGIOTA TSATAS, an _— individual; 2|| OURANIA TSATAS, an individual; KIRIAKOS PRIMBAS, an __ individual; 3 || EVANTHIA PRIMBAS, an __ individual; PATRICK AYOUB, an individual; MICHAEL 4 || BESCEC, an individual, ERNEST LEBOEUF, an individual; PHILIPPE LEGAULT, a 5 individual; EFTIHIOS LITSAKIS, a individual, GIOVANNI MONCADA, a 6 individual, MARC RIEL, an _ individual; JARADEH SALIM, an individual; HANI HAMAM, an individual; CONSTANTIN 7 ZISSIS, an individual; BESSIE PEPPAS, a individual; NIKI PALIOVRAKAS, a 8 || individual, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 || AIRBORNE WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., Nevada Corporation; MICHAEL J. WARREN, % |} an individual; J. EDWARD DANIELS, a oF individual; MARIUS DE MOS, an individual; 8s 13 || JASON DE MOS, an individual; ROBERT BRUCE HARRIS, an individual; KELLY 14 KABILAFKAS, an individual; an: 3 3 APCENTIVE, INC., a Nevada Corporation, 15 ge Defendants.

2 16

= 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

] Plaintiffs hereby submit their Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and Discovery 2 || Plan to Continue All Dates by 180 Days. As required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 || 16(b)(4) (“Rule 16(b)(4)”), good cause exists for this Motion because: (i) Plaintiffs have been 4 || diligent in striving to meet the current Scheduling Order deadlines; (11) Plaintiffs require 5 || additional time to evaluate whether to add parties and/or amend the pleadings; and (111) 6 || Defendants will suffer no prejudice as a result of any granted modification of the Scheduling 7 || Order. 8 This Motion is brought pursuant to FRCP 16, LR JA 6-1, and LR 26-3, and is supported 9 || by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached declaration of Andrew B. 10 || Goodman, the papers and pleadings on file with the Court, and any oral argument presented > 11 || before the Court. 212 2 = 13 || DATED: November 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted.

By: __/s/ Andrew B. Goodman 15 MICHAEL C. VAN, ESQ. #3876 GARRETT R. CHASE, ESQ. #14498 2 16 SHUMWAY VAN 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 = 18 FARHAD NOVIAN ANDREW B. GOODMAN 19 ALEXANDER BRENDON GURA (admitted pro hac vice) 20 NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1201 21 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiffs bring this Motion to Modify the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to 4 || Continue All Dates by 180 Days for the following reasons demonstrating good cause: 5 Plaintiffs will be unable to meaningfully decide whether to amend the pleadings or add 6 || parties by the upcoming deadline of November 19, 2021. Although the Court has denied 7 || Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76), Plaintiffs have not received meaningful discovery 8 || responses from Defendants, which has prevented them from making an educated decision on 9 || whether to amend the pleadings or add parties. As the SEC’s Complaint indicates, the alleged 10 || fraudulent scheme has more layers to it than Plaintiffs realized when they filed the Complaint on 2 11 || November 5, 2020. Plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from amending the pleadings or adding 2 12 || parties because Defendants have not cooperated in the discovery process. = 13 Defendants will suffer no prejudice as a result of any extension granted as to the 3 ; 14 || Scheduling Order. Indeed, Defendants have yet to conduct several additional items of discovery, § 2 15 || and may not even oppose this Motion. Therefore, the Motion should be granted and the 16 || scheduling order extended by 180 days. 5 17 Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS 18 The Court has granted one previous stipulation to continue deadlines in this case. ECF No. 19 || 62. On July 20, 2021, the Parties stipulated that there was good cause for a 120-day extension of 20 || the discovery deadlines in this case so that (1) the Court may rule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 21 || (ECF No. 39), Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 50), and Motion to Stay Entire Case (ECF No. 53), 22 || (11) Plaintiffs can seek the information they need to meaningfully decide whether to amend the 23 || pleadings or add parties, (iii) the Parties may attempt to resolve their discovery disputes related to 24 || Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests short of judicial intervention, and (iv) the Parties can 25 || have more time to complete the necessary discovery. ECF No. 61 at p. 4:7-13. 26 The Court granted the Parties’ stipulation on July 22, 2021 and, for good cause, continued 27 || the deadlines in this case as follows (ECF No. 62 at p. 5:7-11): 28 Discovery Cut-Off — February 21, 2022 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

] Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties - November 19, 2021 2 Expert Disclosures — December 21, 2021 3 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures — January 20, 2022 4 Dispositive Motions — March 22, 2022 5 Since then, the Court, on September 3, 2021, has denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 6 || (ECF No. 39), Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 50), and Motion to Stay Entire Case (ECF No. 53). 7 || ECF No. 76 (denying all three motions). 8 On March 2, 2021, after Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF. No. 1) was already on file for nearly 9 || four months, the SEC filed a complaint against several of the same defendants in the present action 10 || (Airborne, Kabilafkas, and Daniels) and made allegations suggesting a more wide-ranging 2 11 || fraudulent scheme. See generally ECF No. 46-2. Plaintiffs have attempted to seek the information 2 12 || they need to meaningfully decide whether to amend the pleadings or add parties through written = 13 || discovery requests served on May 7, 2021. Declaration of Andrew B. Goodman filed concurrently 3 ; 14 || herewith (“Goodman Decl.”) § 6. These written discovery requests addressed a number of select § 2 15 || allegations in the SEC’s Complaint. /d. Defendants were largely uncooperative. /d. Accordingly, 16 |} on August 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed motions to compel. /d.; see also ECF Nos. 66-73. These 5 17 || motions remain under submission as of October 28, 2021. ECF No. 100. 18 Thus far, Plaintiffs have sent a first set of requests for admission, interrogatories, and 19 || requests for production to all Defendants on May 7, 2021. Goodman Decl., §7. The sufficiency of 20 || Defendants’ objections and October 8, 2021 supplemental responses are subject to Plaintiffs’ 21 || motions to compel, for which a ruling is pending. ECF No. 100. On September 24, 2021, 22 || Defendants sent Plaintiffs their first set of requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for 23 || production. Goodman Decl., J 7. Plaintiffs are in the process of preparing responses, currently due 24 || on the extended deadline of December 3, 2021. Id. 25 Significant discovery remains to be completed, including, but not limited to: third-party 26 || subpoenas; depositions of all Defendants; depositions of Plaintiffs; written discovery to Plaintiffs; 27 || further written discovery to Defendants, depending on any further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set 28 || of Written Discovery that may be compelled by Court order. Goodman Decl., § 8. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

] Plaintiffs will be unable to meaningfully decide whether to amend the pleadings or add 2 || parties by November 19, 2021. Goodman Decl., 4 9. Although the Court has denied Defendants’ 3 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76), Plaintiffs have not received meaningful discovery responses 4 || from Defendants, which has prevented them from making an educated decision on whether to 5 || amend the pleadings or add parties. /d. As the SEC’s Complaint indicates, the alleged fraudulent 6 || scheme has more layers to it than Plaintiffs realized when they filed the Complaint on November 7 || 5, 2020. /d. Plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from amending the pleadings or adding parties 8 || because Defendants have not cooperated in the discovery process. /d. 9 Plaintiffs have made diligent efforts to pursue the discovery they need to meaningfully 10 || evaluate whether to amend the pleadings or add parties as a result of the SEC’s allegations of more 2 11 || wide-ranging fraud. Goodman Decl., J 10. However, because Plaintiffs were forced to file motions 2 12 || to compel, and a ruling is pending, they will need more time to meaningfully evaluate whether or = 13 || not to amend the pleadings or add parties and complete discovery. /d. Given that the alleged 3 ; 14 || fraudulent scheme is so wide-ranging that the SEC alleged it could involve approximately $45 § 2 15 || million (see ECF No. 46-2 at § 1), and Defendants have vehemently opposed all Plaintiffs’ 16 || discovery efforts, there is good cause for an extension of 180 days to the dates in the scheduling 5 17 || order. Goodman Decl., § 10. Accordingly, Plaintiffs propose the following schedule: 18 Discovery Cut-Off — August 22, 2022 19 Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties —- May 19, 2022 20 Expert Disclosures — June 21, 2022 21 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures — July 20, 2022 22 Dispositive Motions — September 22, 2022 23 Id. 24 Between November 11, 2021 and November 17, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel met and 25 || conferred with defense counsel in an attempt to reach a stipulation in lieu of filing a motion. 26 || Goodman Decl., ¥ 11, Ex. A thereto. It is possible Defendants might not oppose Plaintiffs’ request 27 || to continue dates by 180 days. /d. But, due to the press of other matters, defense were unable to 28 || confirm one way or another before the present Motion was filed. /d. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 Il. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified for 3 || good cause and with the Judge’s consent. FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Adv. Comm. Notes to 4 || 1983 Amendment to FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b). To establish “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4), a party 5 || seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that it cannot meet the deadlines 6 || in the order despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d. 7 || 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205, fn.4 (10th Cir. 2006). 8 || Even where the grant of an extension under Rule 16(b)(4) may present prejudice to the non-moving 9 || party, the primary inquiry in determining whether a scheduling order may be modified is whether 10 || the moving party acted diligently in attempting to meet the deadlines in the scheduling order. 2 11 || Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d. at 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). 2 12 Local Rule JA 6-1 supplements Rule 16(b)(4) and requires that “[a] motion or stipulation = 13 || to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all 3 ; 14 || previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” LR IA 6-1. Additionally, a motion § 2 15 || to extend any date set by a scheduling order must be supported by a showing of good cause and 16 || must be received by the court by within 21 days of the subject deadline. LR 26-3. Where a party 5 17 || fails to request an extension before the expiration of the subject deadline, the extension will not be 18 || granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to act was due to excusable neglect. /d. 19 || Further, a motion to extend a discovery deadline must include: (i) a statement specifying the 20 || discovery completed; (11) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; □□□□□ 21 || the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied, or the remaining discovery was not completed 22 || within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (iv) a proposed schedule for completing all 23 || remaining discovery. /d. 24 IV. ARGUMENT 25 A. Plaintiffs’ Motion is timely and satisfies the procedural requirements of Local 26 Rule 26-3 27 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, “[a] motion to extend any date set by a scheduling order must 28 || be received by the court by no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 || Where a party brings a motion to extend dates set by a scheduling order within 21 days of the 2 || subject deadline, the party must also support its request with a showing of good cause. A party 3 || making such a request after the expiration of the subject deadline must demonstrate that its failure 4 || to act was the result of excusable neglect.” LR 26-3. 5 Plaintiffs are filing this Motion on November 18, 2021, which is before the expiration of 6 || the November 19, 2021 deadline to amend the pleadings and add parties. ECF No. 62. Therefore, 7 || the Motion is timely. 8 In satisfaction of the procedural requirements of Local Rule 26-3, Plaintiffs offer the 9 || following: 10 Statement Specifying the Discovery Completed: Thus far, Plaintiffs have sent a first set 2 11 || of requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production to all Defendants on May 7, 2 12 || 2021. Goodman Decl., § 7. The sufficiency of Defendants’ objections and October 8, 2021 = 13 || supplemental responses are subject to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel, for which a ruling is pending. 3 ; 14 || ECF No. 100. On September 24, 2021, Defendants sent Plaintiffs their first set of requests for § 2 15 || admission, interrogatories, and requests for production. Goodman Decl., § 7. Plaintiffs are in the 16 || process of preparing responses, currently due on the extended deadline of December 3, 2021. □□□ 17 Specific Description of the Discovery That Remains to be Completed: Significant 18 || discovery remains to be completed, including, but not limited to: third-party subpoenas; 19 || depositions of all Defendants; depositions of Plaintiffs; written discovery to Plaintiffs; further 20 || written discovery to Defendants, depending on any further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of 21 || Written Discovery that may be compelled by Court order. Goodman Decl., § 8. 22 Reasons Why the Deadline Was Not Satisfied or the Remaining Discovery Was Not 23 || Completed Within the Time Limits Set by the Discovery Plan: Plaintiffs will be unable to 24 || meaningfully decide whether to amend the pleadings or add parties by November 19, 2021. 25 || Goodman Decl., □ 9. Although the Court has denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76), 26 || Plaintiffs have not received meaningful discovery responses from Defendants, which has 27 || prevented them from making an educated decision on whether to amend the pleadings or add 28 || parties. /d. As the SEC’s Complaint indicates, the alleged fraudulent scheme has more layers to it PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

] || than Plaintiffs realized when they filed the Complaint on November 5, 2020. /d. Plaintiffs should 2 || not be foreclosed from amending the pleadings or adding parties because Defendants have not 3 || cooperated in the discovery process. /d. 4 Plaintiffs have made diligent efforts to pursue the discovery they need to meaningfully 5 || evaluate whether to amend the pleadings or add parties as a result of the SEC’s allegations of more 6 || wide-ranging fraud. Goodman Decl., J 10. However, because Plaintiffs were forced to file motions 7 || to compel, and a ruling is pending, they will need more time to meaningfully evaluate whether or 8 |} not to amend the pleadings or add parties and complete discovery. /d. Given that the alleged 9 || fraudulent scheme is so wide-ranging that the SEC alleged it could involve approximately $45 10 || million (see ECF No. 46-2 at § 1), and Defendants have vehemently opposed all Plaintiffs’ 2 11 || discovery efforts, there is good cause for an extension of 180 days to the dates in the scheduling 2 12 || order. Goodman Decl., 10. = 13 Proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery: 3 ; 14 Discovery Cut-Off — August 22, 2022 § 2 15 Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties —- May 19, 2022 16 Expert Disclosures — June 21, 2022 5 17 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures — July 20, 2022 18 Dispositive Motions — September 22, 2022 19 Goodman Decl., § 10. 20 B. Good cause exists for the proposed 180-day extension because Plaintiffs have 21 been diligent in attempting to investigate whether or not to expand the scope 22 of their Complaint and meet the initial deadlines in the Scheduling Order 23 The Court may modify a scheduling order if a party demonstrates “good cause.” FED. R. 24 || Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” sufficient to warrant the modification of a scheduling order exists 25 || where the party seeking modification has demonstrated diligence in attempting to meet the 26 || deadlines in the scheduling order. Johnson, 975 F.2d. at 609. Other factors considered by the court 27 || include: (1) whether trial is imminent; (11) prejudice to the non-moving party; (111) the foreseeability 28 || of the need for additional discovery in light of the extended time allowed for discovery; and (iv) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

] || the likelihood the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SOM N. Am. Corp., 2 || 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017). However, even where the grant of an extension under Rule 3 || 16(b)(4) presents prejudice to the non-moving party, the Court’s primary inquiry in determining a 4 || motion to modify a scheduling order is whether the moving party acted diligently. Johnson, supra, 5 || 975 F.2d. at 609. 6 There is good cause to modify the current Scheduling Order because Plaintiffs have 7 || diligently attempted to comply with the order but cannot reasonably meet the schedule. As 8 || referenced above, Plaintiffs have made diligent efforts to pursue the discovery they need to 9 || meaningfully evaluate whether to amend the pleadings or add parties as a result of the SEC’s 10 || allegations of more wide-ranging fraud. Goodman Decl., { 10. However, because Plaintiffs were 2 11 || forced to file motions to compel, and a ruling is pending, they will need more time to meaningfully 2 12 || evaluate whether or not to amend the pleadings or add parties and complete discovery. /d. = 13 The remaining factors considered by courts in determining whether modification of a 3 ; 14 || scheduling order is warranted also favor the grant of the requested extension. First, trial in this § 2 15 || action is set to occur no sooner than March 2022. Accordingly, trial is not sufficiently imminent 16 || to justify an outright denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion. Second, Defendants will not suffer any prejudice 5 17 || should the Court grant Plaintiffs the requested modification. Here, Defendants have yet to conduct 18 || several additional items of discovery, and their discovery misconduct is the primary reason why 19 || Plaintiffs have been unable to meaningfully evaluate whether or not to amend the pleadings and/or 20 || add parties. If anything, this Motion could have been avoided had Defendants provided non- 21 || evasive, substantive discovery responses and documents. Third, an extension would lead to the 22 || discovery of critical and relevant evidence, including evidence that may lead to an amendment of 23 || the pleadings to further capture the details of Defendants’ alleged fraudulent scheme. 24 V. CONCLUSION 25 Plaintiffs have diligently attempted to comply with the Court’s Scheduling Order but 26 || cannot reasonably meet certain deadlines set forth therein, namely the deadline to amend the 27 || pleadings and/or add parties. Whereas Defendants will not be prejudiced by a modification to the 28 || Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs will suffer significant prejudice if they cannot meaningfully evaluate PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 || whether or not to amend the pleadings and/or add parties. Defendants could attempt to mislead the 2 || Court and/or the jury about the full scope of the fraudulent scheme, which, according to the SEC, 3 || may involve up to $45 million. See ECF No. 46-2 at § 1 Accordingly, good cause exists for the 4 || Court to modify the Scheduling Order and to extend all dates in the discovery plan by 180 days. 5 || Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed modified scheduling 6 || order, filed concurrently herewith. 8 |} DATED: November 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted. By: ___/s/ Andrew B. Goodman 10 MICHAEL C. VAN, ESQ. #3876 GARRETT R. CHASE, ESQ. #14498 Il SHUMWAY VAN 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 #2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 2 = 13 FARHAD NOVIAN ANDREW B. GOODMAN 3 14 ALEXANDER BRENDON GURA (admitted pro hac vice) 15 NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1201 2 16 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 917 = 18 ORDER 19 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to continue all dates in the Discovery Plan and 0 Scheduling Order ("DPSO") by 180 days. ECF No. 106. Defendants agree to this request, except they oppose Plaintiffs’ request to also extend the deadline to amend the 71 pleadings and add parties by any time period, arguing that Plaintiffs have not established the requisite good cause. See ECF Nos. 108 and 109. Plaintiffs replied at ECF No. 110. 22 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to continue all dates in the 23 DPSO, including the deadline to amend the pleadings and add parties, by 180 days. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED that ECF No. 106 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 24 the hearing set for 1/6/2022 is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED 25 DATED: 3:27 pm, January 05, 2022 26 uunwls Wefan BRENDA WEKSLER 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service 3 || are being served with a true and correct copy of the above document on November 18, 2021, via 4 || the Court’s CM/ECF system. Any other parties or counsel of record will be served by regular 5 || and/or electronic mail. 7 /s/ Andrew B. Goodman g Andrew B. Goodman 10 2 1] 2 12 = 13

ag 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN TO CONTINUE