ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

This habeas matter is before the court on respondents' fourth motion for enlargement of time (ECF No. 31). This motion was filed on November 18, 2019—the third extended deadline to file an answer.

Following entry of the order granting respondents' third request for more time, petitioner Alexander Lopez filed a formal objection to any future extensions. (ECF No. 30). Petitioner asked that the November 18, 2019 deadline be firm as he has been patiently waiting since August 2019 for respondents' answer and he is anxious to have his petition resolved in a timely manner. (Id.)

Respondents' fourth motion requests one additional week to answer the petition because counsel has been unable with due diligence to timely complete the answer. Counsel for respondents represents that, during a final review of the state district court and appellate court dockets, respondents "obtained approximately 20 additional records to supplement the previous record." (ECF No. 31 at 2, ¶ 4.) She asserts that she was unable to review the records for redactions nor determine whether they impact the substance of the answer because they were obtained the Friday before the deadline. Counsel acknowledges that petitioner objects to any further extensions, but asserts that her request is not for the purpose of delay. Rather, she requests the short extension to ensure that the record is complete and fully complies with the Local Rules of Practice.

Good cause appearing, respondents' fourth motion is GRANTED. Respondents have up to and including November 25, 2019, to answer the petition in this case. However, counsel for respondents is cautioned, further extensions of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of good cause why the answer could not be completed within the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.