Filed: Nov. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the parties' previous stipulation for an extension of time (Doc. 13) and the Court's order modifying the Scheduling Order in this case, Defendant's responsive brief was due to be filed no later than October 31, 2018. (Doc. 14.) The parties filed a "Stipulation to Extend Time to File Opening Brief" on November 13, 2018— nearly two weeks after Plaintiff's opening brief deadline expire
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the parties' previous stipulation for an extension of time (Doc. 13) and the Court's order modifying the Scheduling Order in this case, Defendant's responsive brief was due to be filed no later than October 31, 2018. (Doc. 14.) The parties filed a "Stipulation to Extend Time to File Opening Brief" on November 13, 2018— nearly two weeks after Plaintiff's opening brief deadline expired..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the parties' previous stipulation for an extension of time (Doc. 13) and the Court's order modifying the Scheduling Order in this case, Defendant's responsive brief was due to be filed no later than October 31, 2018. (Doc. 14.) The parties filed a "Stipulation to Extend Time to File Opening Brief" on November 13, 2018—nearly two weeks after Plaintiff's opening brief deadline expired. (Doc. 15.)
The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of "excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, Plaintiff's counsel demonstrates good cause to support the request for an extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), and represents that the extension is requested after the deadline because she "inadvertently overlooked the due date previously believing that it was not her case" and was out of the office handling other matters on her motion calendar for the last week.
While the Court understands that calendaring errors may happen from time to time, this is Plaintiff's counsel's second post hoc request for an extension of time. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IS ADMONISHED that the Court dedicates substantial resources to moving cases forward efficiently and expects the parties to do the same. Despite Plaintiff's counsel's post hoc request, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Defendant (as evidenced by her agreement to the extension of time after the deadline), as well as the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties' stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an extension of time, up to and including November 28, 2018, by which to file her opening brief. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 3) are modified accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
