Filed: Jan. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2019
Summary: MOTION AND ORDER FOR ONE-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF (Doc. 15) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his Opening Brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 15), one day after his Opening Brief was to be served. ( See Doc. 13.) The Motion requests an extension until January 29, 2019, to file his Opening Brief and represents that Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff filed his Openin
Summary: MOTION AND ORDER FOR ONE-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF (Doc. 15) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his Opening Brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 15), one day after his Opening Brief was to be served. ( See Doc. 13.) The Motion requests an extension until January 29, 2019, to file his Opening Brief and represents that Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff filed his Opening..
More
MOTION AND ORDER FOR ONE-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF
(Doc. 15)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his Opening Brief (the "Motion") (Doc. 15), one day after his Opening Brief was to be served. (See Doc. 13.) The Motion requests an extension until January 29, 2019, to file his Opening Brief and represents that Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff filed his Opening Brief on January 29, 2019. (Doc. 14.)
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 "due to unforeseen computer malfunction/technical difficulties." (Doc. 15 at 1.)
While the Court understands that computer difficulties may happen from time to 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 including not waiting until the eleventh hour to file critical documents. Despite Plaintiff's counsel's post hoc request, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Defendant (as evidenced by her 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 Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to his Opening Brief, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to January 29, 2019, the date the Opening Brief was filed. (See Doc. 14.) All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) are modified accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
