AMENDED ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE ALL DEADLINES AND TRIAL1

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant Tulare Regional Medical Center's ("TRMC") ex parte application to continue all deadlines and trial by forty-five days. (Doc. No. 35.) TRMC argues that in June 2016, plaintiff Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC ("Firstsource") propounded discovery requests seeking production of all documents relating to every hospital-patient transaction for which Firstsource failed to collect. (Id. at 4.) The task of obtaining and producing these documents, TRMC argues, has required TRMC to retain two consultants to locate, analyze, and export the data, and that task could not be completed by the non-expert discovery cut-off of September 22, 2016. (Id. at 2.)

In opposition, plaintiff contends that TRMC initially produced thirty-two pages of documents in response to plaintiff's request, and "never told Firstsource that it had more documents it was not producing." (Doc. No. 36 at 2.) In a supplemental brief, plaintiff states that on the night of September 22, 2016, the discovery cut-off date, defendant produced files totaling 584 megabytes purportedly containing data relating to patient transactions during the relevant time period. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Defendant's counsel stated that "[t]he data produced is over-inclusive because TRMC's second consultant has not yet had time to sync and analyze the data. . . . We will provide additional information once the second consultant has completed his work." (Id.) Plaintiff Firstsource argues that such a production imposes an unnecessary burden on it, and that TRMC should be barred from relying on any of the information in this production at trial. (Id. at 3.) On October 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 40.)

District courts have the authority to modify a scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." See Johnson v. Mammoth Re-creations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). In this regard, the court may modify a scheduling order deadline "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Id.; see also Zivkovich v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) ("If the party seeking the modification `was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should not be granted."). Having considered the parties' briefs, the court finds good cause to grant defendant's ex parte application to modify the scheduling order in this case. Defendant TRMC has demonstrated that it has been diligent in identifying and exporting data responsive to plaintiff's request and appears to have made its best effort at producing such data prior to the scheduled close of discovery. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff argues TRMC previously failed to identify these documents pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff has not shown that these documents must be excluded. Parties have an ongoing duty to supplement or correct their disclosures "in a timely manner" throughout the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Thus, the court finds that a modest continuance sought by defendant is appropriate and should provide defendant adequate time to complete its production in a reasonable manner.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds good cause to grant defendant's ex parte application (Doc. No. 35). Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.