Fiona

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 FIONA, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05277-BLF

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER REOPENING BRIEFING ON

10 v. MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

11 BRIAN RISSO, [Re: Dkt. No. 34] 12 Defendant.

13 14 Before the Court is Defendant’s “Ex Parte Application to Reopen Briefing on Motion to 15 Strike.” Dkt. No. 34 (“Mot.”). The Court previously construed Defendant’s request as an 16 administrative motion and gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond. Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiffs filed 17 a response on July 10, 2025. Dkt. No. 36 (“Resp.”). For the following reasons, the Court 18 GRANTS Defendant’s request. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) states that “[w]hen an act may or must be done 21 within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after 22 the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” “‘Good cause’ is a 23 …