Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

3:18-cv-629-JLS-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANOKIWAVE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GABRIEL REBEIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-629-JLS-AHG

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR ORDER 

EXTENDING DEFENDANT 

SPECTRABEAM LLC’S DEADLINE 

TO RAISE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF No. 103]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to for Order Extending Defendnat 

SpectraBeam LLC’s Deadline to Raise Discovery Dispute. ECF No. 103. Under the 

Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. at 3), the parties would have been required to bring any 

discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s responses1to the Court’s attention by 

November 21, 2019. Here, the parties move for a 15-day continuance. ECF No. 103 at 2.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion.

Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2

 

1 Plaintiff’s responses at issue here regard Defendant SpectraBeam’s fourth set of written 

requests for production of documents, served on September 6, 2019, which Plaintiff

responded to on October 7, 2019. ECF No. 103 at 2.

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 106 Filed 11/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-629-JLS-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 

request”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent”); 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”). 

“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 

procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. 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).

The parties have represented to the Court that they have engaged in ongoing meet 

and confer efforts regarding Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant SprectraBeam’s discovery 

requests. See ECF No. 103-1 at 2. To facilitate the meet-and-confer process, and in light of 

the pending Thanksgiving holiday, the parties contend that a 15-day extension would allow 

the parties to resolve a number of the disputes at issue without court intervention. Id.

The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet 

the good cause standard. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion, and orders that the 

parties bring any discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s responses to the Court’s attention 

by December 6, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 106 Filed 11/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2