ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE SUBMISSIONS BEYOND SUBMISSION DEADLINE

JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.

In this civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Defendant Iftikar Ahmed moves [Doc. # 894] to Preclude Submissions Beyond the Submission Deadline.

On May 16, 2018, this Court granted in part the SEC's Motion [Doc. # 876] for Extension of Time to File Motion for Judgment and ordered submission of all dispositive motions by May 29, 2018. ([Doc. # 879].) On May 29, 2018, the SEC filed its Motion [Doc. # 886] for Judgment and Remedies and its Memorandum [Doc. # 887] in Support of that Motion. However, four additional filings in support of that motion were submitted by the SEC between twelve and thirty-one minutes after midnight on May 30, 2018. ( [Doc. ## 888-891].) The SEC attributes this delay to an "uploading glitch." (SEC's Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Preclude [Doc. # 896] 5-2.)

Mr. Ahmed notes that even a slight delay in filing could, in some circumstances, prejudice the other party. (Def.'s Reply to SEC's Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Preclude [Doc. # 897]) at 8.) Though he alleges that this Court's acceptance of the SEC's slightly delayed filings "would unfairly prejudice the Defendant," (id. at 7), Mr. Ahmed provides no information as to the nature or extent of the prejudice that he would suffer. See Mascaro Const. Co. L.P. v. Local Union No. 20, 2010 WL 3199683 at *2 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that "district courts have broad discretion to enforce deadlines, or to excuse the enforcement of deadlines" and accepting a brief which was filed approximately sixteen minutes late because the delay caused "no prejudice.") In the absence of any substantive claims of prejudice suffered as a result of the SEC's delay, Mr. Ahmed's Motion [Doc. # 894] is DENIED.