ORDER

(Docket Nos. 57, 58, 59)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court are SFR's motion to reconsider the prior order granting Plaintiff's motion for protective order and for sanctions as unopposed, and motion for leave to file an untimely opposition brief. Docket Nos. 57, 58. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and SFR filed a reply. Docket Nos. 62, 65. The Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion for leave to file an untimely opposition brief is GRANTED, and the motion to reconsider is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, Plaintiff's motion for calculation of attorneys' fees at Docket No. 59 is DENIED as moot.

I. SFR'S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE RESPONSE

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion for protective order. Docket No. 50. The deadline for SFR to file its opposition brief was October 24, 2016. See Local Rule 7-2(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (previous version).1 SFR did not meet that deadline. On October 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion as unopposed. See Docket No. 56.

To determine whether to allow for the untimely filing of the opposition, the Court looks to whether excusable neglect has been established in failing to comply with the already-established deadline. In doing so, the Court considers: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The reason for SFR's failure to comply with the local rules is not a compelling one, by any stretch.2 Nonetheless, the Court finds that balancing of the equitable factors tilts in favor of permitting the late filing of an opposition brief. As such, the motion for leave to file an opposition will be GRANTED.

SFR has not actually prepared and submitted a proposed responsive brief in this case. Instead, it has referenced the responsive brief that it filed in Bank of America v. Desert Pine Villas Homeowners Association, Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-JCM-NJK. See Docket No. 65 at 5. SFR represents that the issues raised in the motion for protective order in this case are identical to those at issue in the motion filed in the Desert Pine case. See id. As such, the Court will deem that responsive brief as having also been filed in this case.

II. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court has issued an order resolving the motion for protective order in the Desert Pine case and hereby incorporates that order herein to conclude that the motion for protective order shall be granted, but that an award of attorneys' fees is not appropriate.

The Court therefore GRANTS the motion for reconsideration of its order at Docket No. 56 in this case to the extent that order is inconsistent with this ruling, and it is otherwise DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, SFR's motion for leave to file an opposition (Docket No. 58) is GRANTED, SFR's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff's motion for calculation of attorneys' fees (Docket No. 59) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.