PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. ) Docket No. 9386 

) 

a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

On December 27, 2019, Respondent RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. ("Respondent" or 

"Raging Wire") filed a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to certain discovery 

requests served by Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Complaint Counsel ("Motion"). The 

Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as explained below. 1 

According to the Motion, Respondent's responses to Complaint Counsel's first set of 

interrogatories and first request for production of documents would be due January 9, 2020, but 

Respondent's staff and personnel required to respond to the discovery requests are out of the 

office until January 6, 2020. The Motion fmther represents that Respondent's counsel and 

Complaint Counsel met to discuss an extension of time for Respondent's discovery responses, 

and that, as a result of those discussions, Complaint Counsel (1) agreed to a two-week extension 

of time for Respondent to respond to Complaint Counsel's first set of interrogatories, until 

January 23, 2020, and (2) rejected Respondent's request for a one-week extension "to file 

objections [to Complaint Counsel's request for production of documents] and to determine how 

long it would take Respondent to fully produce the requested materials." Motion at 2. 

Respondent requests an order ( 1) incorporating the parties' agreed extension of time until 

January 23, 2020 for Respondent to respond to Complaint Counsel's first set of interrogatories 

and (2) granting a 30-day extension of time until February 9, 2020 for Respondent to respond to 

Complaint Counsel's first request for production of documents. 

1 FTC Rule 3.22(f) authorizes the Administrative Law Judge to resolve a party's motion for extension of time 

without waiting for a response by the opposing party. 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(f). 
Based on the representations in the Motion, there is no dispute as to an extension of time 

until January 23, 2020 for Respondent to respond to Complaint Counsel's interrogatories. 

Therefore, that request is GRANTED. 

The Motion fails to justify a 30-day extension of time, until February 9, 2020, to respond 

to Complaint Counsel's request for production of documents. The Motion acknowledges that 

knowledgeable personnel of Respondent will be available as of January 9, 2020. Respondent's 

request for a 30-day extension is therefore DENIED. A two-week extension, until January 23, 

2020, is sufficient to compensate for delay occasioned by holiday absences. In this regard, 

Respondent's Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

Accordingly, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and 

it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall serve its responses to Complaint Counsel's first set 

of interrogatories and first request for production of documents by January 23, 2020. 

ORDERED: 

D. MichaelCh pell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December 30, 2019 

2