Ledwidge v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-08352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ledwidge v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Judge Freeman granted the FDIC’s motion, extending its answer and administrative-record deadline until 60 days after the dismissal ruling.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation received additional time to file its answer and a certified copy of the administrative record. The plaintiffs’ related deadlines were affected because the timing for their later summary-judgment filing depends on the FDIC’s answer.
What happened
In Ledwidge v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation asked to extend deadlines for filing its answer and a certified index of the administrative record. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The FDIC argued that its pending motion to dismiss extended its time to answer and that preparing the administrative record by the existing deadline would require burdensome privilege, confidentiality, and agency reviews. It also argued that the plaintiffs would not be harmed by a short delay.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found good cause and no meaningful prejudice to the plaintiffs. She granted the motion and extended the FDIC’s deadlines until 60 days after the court rules on the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Ledwidge v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · No. 5:24-cv-08352
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) moved to extend deadlines under Civil Local Rule 16-5. That rule requires a defendant in an action reviewing an administrative record to file an answer and a certified copy of the administrative record within 90 days after receiving the summons and complaint. It also requires the plaintiff to file a summary-judgment motion within 28 days after receiving the answer.
The FDIC asked to extend the deadlines for filing its answer and the certified index of the administrative record. It pointed to its recently filed motion to dismiss and argued that preparing the record would require a thorough privilege and confidentiality review, including multiple levels of internal agency review. The FDIC also argued that proceeding under the existing deadlines could lead to unnecessary pleadings and briefing. The plaintiffs did not file a response.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), a party seeking an extension of a specified deadline must show good cause. The court described that standard as broad and non-rigorous, particularly when the request is made before the deadline and there is no bad faith or prejudice.
The court found good cause to extend the deadlines. It noted that Civil Local Rule 16-5 applied to only one of the plaintiffs’ six causes of action, so requiring the FDIC to prepare a partial answer and the certified index before the court decided the motion to dismiss would not efficiently use judicial or party resources. The court also agreed that the FDIC would face a significant burden if the deadlines were not extended. It found little evidence of prejudice to the plaintiffs, especially because they had not opposed the motion.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman GRANTED the FDIC’s Motion to Extend Deadlines Under Civil Local Rule 16-5. The FDIC’s deadline to file its answer and a certified copy of the administrative record was extended until 60 days after the court rules on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.