Sunderland v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc.

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA SUNDERLAND and Case No.: 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG BENJAMIN BINDER, 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT individually and on behalf of all others MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE similarly situated, TO CONTACT THE COURT 15 Plaintiffs, REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., et al., [ECF No. 47] 18 Defendants.

20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend the deadline to raise discovery disputes with the Court. ECF No. 47. Under the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see AHG.Chmb.R. at 2–3), the parties would have been required to bring any discovery dispute regarding NIS Labs’s responses to Defendant’s subpoena duces tecum to the Court’s attention by April 27, 2024. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the deadline slightly.

25 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”).

1 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across || procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian vy. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 || (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to || amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon || the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.’’) (internal citation omitted).

8 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they are actively meeting and ||conferring regarding NIS Labs’s responses. ECF No. 47 at 2. The parties further represent 10 they are “engaged in ongoing meet and confer efforts to resolved [sic] their disputes ||regarding the sufficiency of NIS’s response to the Subpoena ... [and] believe that || additional time is necessary to continue these efforts and potentially reach a resolution || without the need for court interventions.” Jd. Hence, the parties seek an order from the || Court extending the deadline raise their dispute by approximately two weeks, to facilitate || a cooperative resolution. /d.

16 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to resolve their 17 disputes without judicial intervention. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the ||motion. ECF No. 47. Thus, the parties must bring any discovery dispute regarding || NIS Labs’s responses to Defendant’s subpoena duces tecum to the Court’s attention in the 20 manner described in ECF No. 45 at 9 5 no later than May 10, 2024.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 ll Dated: April 25, 2024 23 _ Apion.

Honorable Allison H. Goddard 24 United States Magistrate Judge