State of Idaho v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

STATE OF IDAHO, through ATTORNEY
GENERAL LAWRENCE WASDEN,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00108-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES,
INC., and STANDARD & POOR’S
FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response to Complaint (Dkt. 7). The parties agreed to expedite the briefing on the
motion, which is now completed. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant
the motion.
ANALYSIS
Defendants ask the Court to extend their deadline for filing a response to the
Complaint until after the Court rules on the pending Motion to Stay. The Motion to Stay
was filed on March 11, 2013.
Rule 6 requires “good cause” for an extension of time under the circumstances of
this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Defendants ask the Court for the extension in the
interest of judicial efficiency, to avoid duplication of efforts and resources, and to avoid

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

the prospect of inconsistent rulings because the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigaiton
is considering a consolidation of this matter with several similar cases filed throughout
the United States. Essentially, they explain that if they are required to file their responsive
pleading, which in all likelihood will be a motion to dismiss, this Court may issue a
decision which may ultimately be at odds with a decision issued by a transferee court in
the MDL case.
Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants have had ample time to prepare and file their
responsive pleading. Even if true, that fact does not make much difference here.
However, they further suggest that an extension would prolong this case rather than
promote judicial economy. But they also indicate that they intend to fully respond to and
oppose the pending motion to stay.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion. The
question whether this case should await a decision by the MDL Panel before proceeding
will be fully addressed within the Motion to Stay. Extending the deadline for Defendants
to respond to the Complaint until after the Court addresses that motion will give the
parties and the Court a better opportunity to fully consider the issue without having to
address a potential motion to dismiss at this point. Doing otherwise would put the
proverbial cart before the horse. Moreover, such an extension will be rather short. The
Motion to Stay was filed on March 11. That means the motion will be fully briefed within
a month – or sooner if Plaintiffs choose to file their response brief sooner than the 21
days allotted them.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

However, the Court is nonetheless mindful of the delay. Accordingly, if the Court
ultimately denies the Motion to Stay, the Court will expect to set tight deadlines in its
Case Management Order as a way of making up for this initial delay.1 That way, any
delay caused by this Order will be minimal.
ORDER

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint
(Dkt. 7) is GRANTED.

DATED: March 22, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

1

The Court notes that Plaintiffs recently filed a Motion to Remand. Obviously, that motion may change everything,
but the Court cannot pre-judge it at this point.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3