ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

Docket No. 19.

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

This case was removed from state to federal court by Defendant. Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition, so he requests leave to file a late one—the proposed opposition is attached to his motion. He states that he "ha[s] not been on ECF or Pacer in approximately ten years and . . . had unfortunately missed the filing deadlines." Wolf Decl. ¶ 4. After learning of the missed deadline, Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant's counsel to request a stipulation extending his opposition deadline to December 12. Wolf Decl. ¶ 2. Defendant's counsel stated he would "have to take it up with the Court" but did not otherwise offer a reason for refusing to stipulate, such as undue prejudice. Id. ¶ 3. After contacting the courtroom deputy, Plaintiff's counsel again attempted to stipulate with Defendant, but Defendant refused a second time, again without identifying any reason other than that the deadline had passed. Id. ¶ 7.

Despite refusing to stipulate to an extension of time, Defendant did not file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion within the four-day period. See Local Civ. R. 6-3(b). In light of Defendant's failure to oppose the motion or to identify any prejudice it would face from a brief extension of the deadline, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request and admits the proposed opposition brief attached to his motion. See Docket No. 19-1. Defendant shall file a reply within 7 days. The matter remains on calendar for January 4, 2018.

The parties' failure to reach a stipulation on a request for an extension that was nevertheless unopposed is disappointing and an unnecessary drain on the Court's resources. The parties are urged to resolve scheduling issues amicably in the future particularly in the absence of prejudice to either side.

IT IS SO ORDERED.