Boston Post Partners II, LLP v. Paskett et al

Filing 135

ORDER granting 134 Motion for Court to Accept Its Summary Judgment Opposition Papers Filed One Day Late. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/22/2017. (MMO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Boston Post Partners II LLP,

No. CV-16-02401-PHX-DLR

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Golden Sands Partnership, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Boston Partners II, LLC has filed a Motion for Court to

17

Accept Its Summary Judgment Opposition Papers Filed One Day Late. (Doc. 134.)

18

Defendants filed their summary judgment motions on February 13, 2017. Pursuant to

19

LRCiv 56.1, Plaintiff’s responses were due 30 days later on March 15, 2017, but Plaintiff

20

filed them one day later.

21

declaration that he anticipated filing Plaintiff’s responses on March 15, 2017, but he

22

encountered technical difficulties with the Court’s electronic filing system, CM/ECF.

23

Specifically, Mr. Livingstone’s password did not work and he tried three times to reset it

24

prior to the filing deadline, but was unsuccessful.

25

Plaintiff’s counsel, James Livingstone, states in a sworn

The following day, Mr. Livingstone emailed Plaintiff’s responses to counsel for

26

Defendants and filed the materials with the Court.

He also emailed counsel for

27

Defendants and asked if they would consent to a one day extension of time to

28

accommodate his delayed filings.

Surprisingly, counsel for Defendants refused,

1

apparently because they did not believe the CM/ECF system was down for maintenance

2

during the relevant time. Neither attorney, however, responded that the delay prejudiced

3

their clients.

4

For good cause, the Court may accept documents filed late due to excusable

5

neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). “Determining whether neglect is excusable requires

6

a court to balance the danger or prejudice to the [other party], the length of the delay and

7

its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, . . . and whether the

8

movant acted in good faith.” Uche-Uwakwe v. Shinseki, 349 Fed. App’x 136, 137 (9th

9

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citations omitted). “This rule, like all the Federal

10

Rules of Civil Procedure, is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of

11

seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d

12

1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

13

Here, the Court need not await a response from Defendants to conclude that good

14

cause, the interests of justice, and the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure weigh

15

in favor of Plaintiff’s requested extension. Counsel for Defendants complained of no

16

prejudice to their clients when responding to Mr. Livingstone’s email, nor can the Court

17

conceive of any meaningful prejudice under these circumstances. Mr. Livingstone filed

18

Plaintiff’s responses a mere one day late, and the delay appears to have resulted from

19

technical difficulties and not from bad faith.

20

Absent meaningful prejudice to their clients, counsel for Defendants should have

21

agreed to Mr. Livingstone’s request as a matter of professional courtesy. This would

22

have obviated the need for Plaintiff to file the present motion and its accompanying

23

twenty pages of attachments, and would have saved the judicial resources spent in having

24

to issue an order granting the motion. Civil litigation is not a war to be won at all costs,

25

and there is no need to “play hardball” in order to prevail on the merits. Rule 1 of the

26

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes clear that the rules should be employed by the

27

parties not as a “gotcha game” to take advantage of innocent and harmless mistakes by

28

the other side, but to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

-2-

1

action[.]” In short, the “purpose of the court system is to resolve civil disputes in a civil

2

way.” Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 312 F.R.D. 692, 708 (D.N.J. 2015).

3
4
5

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Accept Its Summary
Judgment Opposition Papers Filed One Day Late (Doc. 134) is GRANTED.
Dated this 22nd day of March, 2017.

6
7
8
9
10

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-