Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF (Doc. 18) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On January 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's opening brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 18), seventeen days after Defendant's opposition brief was to be served. ( See Doc. 5.) The Motion requests an extension until January 21, 2019, to file the opposition brief and represents that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (
Summary: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF (Doc. 18) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On January 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's opening brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 18), seventeen days after Defendant's opposition brief was to be served. ( See Doc. 5.) The Motion requests an extension until January 21, 2019, to file the opposition brief and represents that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (D..
More
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF (Doc. 18)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
On January 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's opening brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 18), seventeen days after Defendant's opposition brief was to be served. (See Doc. 5.) The Motion requests an extension until January 21, 2019, to file the opposition brief and represents that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 18 at 1.) Defendant filed an opposition brief on January 20, 2019. (Doc. 19.)
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, Defendant'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 counsel inadvertently mis-calendared the deadline due to the multiple extensions Plaintiff received to file his opening brief and counsel's large caseload. (Doc. 18 at 2.)
While the Court understands that calendaring errors may happen from time to time, DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL IS ADMONISHED that the Court dedicates substantial resources to moving cases forward efficiently and expects the parties to do the same. Despite Defendant's counsel's post hoc request, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by his lack of opposition to an 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 Defendant's request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's request for an extension of time to file her opposition brief, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to January 20, 2019, the date the opposition brief was filed. (See Doc. 19.) All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) are modified accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
