NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court are SFR's motion to reconsider the prior order granting Plaintiff's motion for protective order and for sanctions as unopposed, and motion for leave to file an untimely opposition brief. Docket Nos. 57, 58. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and SFR filed a reply. Docket Nos. 62, 65. The Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion for leave to file an untimely opposition brief is
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion for protective order. Docket No. 50. The deadline for SFR to file its opposition brief was October 24, 2016. See Local Rule 7-2(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (previous version).
To determine whether to allow for the untimely filing of the opposition, the Court looks to whether excusable neglect has been established in failing to comply with the already-established deadline. In doing so, the Court considers: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The reason for SFR's failure to comply with the local rules is not a compelling one, by any stretch.
SFR has not actually prepared and submitted a proposed responsive brief in this case. Instead, it has referenced the responsive brief that it filed in Bank of America v. Desert Pine Villas Homeowners Association, Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-JCM-NJK. See Docket No. 65 at 5. SFR represents that the issues raised in the motion for protective order in this case are identical to those at issue in the motion filed in the Desert Pine case. See id. As such, the Court will deem that responsive brief as having also been filed in this case.
The Court has issued an order resolving the motion for protective order in the Desert Pine case and hereby incorporates that order herein to conclude that the motion for protective order shall be granted, but that an award of attorneys' fees is not appropriate.
The Court therefore
For the reasons discussed above, SFR's motion for leave to file an opposition (Docket No. 58) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.