Filed: Jan. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2020
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 24. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On November 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to provide Plaintiff with a second extension to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) On November 5, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation and explicitly advised the parties that "[n]o further extensions from Plaintiff will be entertained." (Dkt. No. 21 at 2.) Despite this proviso, on
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 24. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On November 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to provide Plaintiff with a second extension to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) On November 5, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation and explicitly advised the parties that "[n]o further extensions from Plaintiff will be entertained." (Dkt. No. 21 at 2.) Despite this proviso, on ..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 24.
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On November 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to provide Plaintiff with a second extension to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) On November 5, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation and explicitly advised the parties that "[n]o further extensions from Plaintiff will be entertained." (Dkt. No. 21 at 2.) Despite this proviso, on December 5, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation that would have provided Plaintiff with a third extension of time until January 5, 2019. (Dkt. No. 22.) On December 18, 2019, the Court denied the request, but gave Plaintiff until December 26, 2019 to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff did not do so.
On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) She concurrently filed the motion. (Dkt. No. 25.) No opposition to the motion for leave was filed.
In seeking leave to file the untimely motion, counsel David P. Waggoner explained that he relied on the ECF email notification granting the November 4, 2019 stipulation, which "did not include the Court's admonishment that no further extensions would be entertained." (Decl. of David P. Waggoner, Dkt. No. 24-1 ¶ 9.) The email notification, however, includes only the docket text, which is not a valid substitute for reviewing the order that was filed by the Court. (See Dkt. No. 24-2.) Indeed, as counsel of record, Mr. Waggoner is responsible for reviewing the actual order, and acting in accordance with it to avoid unnecessary harm to his client.
Nonetheless, while the Court is disappointed that Mr. Waggoner has not accepted responsibility for failing to read the November 5, 2019 order, the Court is sympathetic to Mr. Waggoner's challenges regarding his mother's health.1 For that reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Waggoner is advised that the failure to adhere to future deadlines in this case or others due to a misplaced reliance on ECF emails, in lieu of reviewing the Court's orders, may result in adverse rulings, including dismissals for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
