Panacea Plant Sciences Inc v. Garland

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PANACEA PLANT SCIENCES, INC., and Case No. C24-477RSM DAVID HELDRETH, CEO, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 11 Plaintiffs, EXTENSION OF TIME 12 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as U.S. Attorney General, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc. (“PPS”)’s one-page, ex parte Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #11.

On April 16, 2024, the Court found that PPS was not represented by counsel in violation of LCR 83.2 and directed it “to secure counsel and for that counsel to make an appearance in this case prior to the filing of future motions or requests for relief, and in any event no later than May 16, 2024.” Dkt. #9 at 2. PPS now moves to extend that deadline to June 20. Dkt. #11 at 1. The only explanation for this request is “we are experiencing difficulty finding those who wish to litigate against the government.” Id. No other facts are provided.

There is no attached declaration.

“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline,” LCR 7(j), and a motion for relief should be granted where “good cause” exists. See Allstate Indem.

Co. v. Lindquist, No. C20-1508JLR, 2022 WL 1443676, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2022).

When seeking an extension, the good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id. 8 PPS has failed to set forth any evidence of efforts to obtain counsel. PPS does not engage with the good cause standard. The record appears to indicate that PPS has known about the potential for litigation for some time. The Court has good reason to insist on PPS being represented by counsel, as this party has already filed several Motions in this case ex parte despite already being in contact with Defendants through the parallel regulatory matter, and 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 good cause to request it.

Accordingly, having considered the above Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that PPS’s Motion, Dkt. #11, is DENIED.

20 DATED this 6th day of May, 2024.

A 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE