SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Background

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) asked for an extension under Civil Local Rule 16-5 to file its answer to SVB Financial Group’s complaint and a certified copy of the administrative record. The FDIC said it intended to file a motion to dismiss at least one of SVB Financial Group’s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. It argued that an extension would avoid duplicative filings, prevent a motion for summary judgment from becoming due before the motion to dismiss was decided, and reduce the burden of preparing the administrative record while briefing the motion to dismiss.

SVB Financial Group opposed the motion. It argued that the request was effectively a request to pause discovery, that it could not meaningfully respond to the motion to dismiss without the administrative record, and that further delay would prejudice it and impair efficient resolution of the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court extended the deadline for the FDIC to answer the complaint. It agreed with the FDIC that filing a motion to dismiss part of a complaint generally suspends the deadline to answer the entire complaint, including claims not challenged by that motion. The court also found good cause for an extension because requiring a partial answer followed by a motion for summary judgment before the motion to dismiss was decided could result in duplicative pleadings and arguments.

The court did not grant the requested 60-day extension. Instead, it extended the deadline for the FDIC to file one answer to all claims remaining after the court rules on the motion to dismiss to 14 days after that ruling.

The court treated the requested extension for the administrative record as effectively seeking a stay, or pause, of discovery. Under the test applied in the district, a stay requires a pending motion that could dispose of the case or the issue involved in discovery, and a showing that the motion can be decided without additional discovery. Because the contemplated motion to dismiss had not yet been filed, the court could not determine whether it could be decided without additional discovery. The FDIC therefore had not made the required showing.

The court also found that the FDIC had not adequately shown good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 to extend the administrative-record deadline. Although the FDIC described privilege, confidentiality, and internal agency reviews, it submitted no declarations or other evidence supporting those statements.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the FDIC’s motion for an extension of deadlines under Civil Local Rule 16-5. The deadline for the FDIC to file an answer to the entire complaint was extended until 14 days after the court rules on any motion to dismiss. The FDIC was required to comply with Civil Local Rule 16-5’s deadline for filing the administrative record. The order also states that the motion to dismiss together with lodging the administrative record was due by March 4, 2024. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.