MARTIN v. STOOPS BUICK, INC. et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying as moot 46 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time and Plaintiff is ALLOWED to and including 10/30/2015 within which to file her amended response to Defendants' re 42 MOTION for Summary Ju dgment and granting 51 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages to an amended response brief exceeding 35 pages but not to exceed 50 pages in length. Defendants shall have to and including 11/23/2015, within which to file their reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 10/29/2015. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ELLA SUN MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STOOPS BUICK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00298-RLY-DKL

Entry and Order on Plaintiff’s First Motion for Extension of Time [dkt. #46], Plaintiff’s
Second Motion for Extension of Time [dkt. #48] and Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting
Permission to File Amended Response Brief Exceeding Page Limitation [dkt. #51]
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time
to File Brief in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. #48] and Plaintiff’s
Motion Requesting Permission to File Response Brief Exceeding Page Limit and for Leave to File
Amended Response Brief [dkt. # 51]. Defendants have filed their response in opposition to
the motions. Chief Judge Young has referred these motions to the undersigned for ruling.
Defendants filed their summary judgment motion and 33-page supporting brief
on September 17, 2015; Plaintiff’s response brief was due October 19, 2015. On October
19, Plaintiff filed her first motion for an enlargement of time [dkt. #46], seeking a twoday enlargement to October 21 within which to respond. Late on October 21, however,
Plaintiff’s counsel experienced technical difficulties in electronically filing the response.
Although he attempted to file the response by the deadline, he did not succeed. Counsel
worked into the early morning hours on October 22. Just before 5 a.m. on October 22, he

filed Plaintiff’s 66-page response brief but without filing the evidence she relied on in
support. On October 23, counsel filed Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time.
Plaintiff seeks a modest extension of time to file her amended response brief and
supporting materials—to and including October 30, eleven days from the original
deadline. Plaintiff attributes the inability to file her response on October 21 to the volume
of discovery materials cited in support of her brief and the related technical difficulties
with electronic filing.
Plaintiff has shown good cause for granting her motion for an extension of time
after the deadline for filing her response has passed as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B) (allowing an extension of time after the time for acting has expired where the
failure to act was “because of excusable neglect”). The determination of whether neglect
is “excusable” “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances
surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’shp,
507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Plaintiff encountered technical difficulties in timely filing her
response. The danger of prejudice to Defendants is slight, the length of delay is brief, and
the potential impact on the judicial proceedings is minimal. The Court notes that this
cause is set for trial on March 21, 2016. The brief delay in the filing of Plaintiff’s amended
response should not impact the trial setting. Under these circumstances and in the
interest of resolving this matter on the merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made an
adequate showing that her failure to act by the deadline was due to excusable neglect.

2

Plaintiff filed a 66-page brief but did not request leave to file a brief exceeding the
page limits in Local Rule 7-1(e)(1). The brief has no table of contents, statement of issues,
or table of authorities, as Local Rule 7-1(e)(3) requires. She seeks leave to correct these
omissions in her response brief. She cites the large volume of discovery materials cited
in support of her response as one reason for filing a brief in excess of 35 pages. She also
asserts that this case presents an unsettled issue under Seventh Circuit law regarding the
scope of the charges contained in the EEOC complaint, which required more extensive
briefing than might otherwise be required.
Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient reasons for filing a brief in excess of the 35page limit in the Local Rule. However, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ 33-page brief
filed on October 23 and finds that Plaintiff does not need 66 pages to adequately respond
to the summary judgment motion. (The table of contents, table of authorities, and
certificate of service are not included within the page limitation. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 71(e)(1).) The Court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended response not to exceed 50
pages.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. #48] is GRANTED and Plaintiff is
ALLOWED to and including October 30, 2015, within which to file her amended
response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting

Permission to File Response Brief Exceeding Page Limit and for Leave to File Amended Response
Brief [dkt. # 51] is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ALLOWED to file an amended response
brief exceeding 35 pages but not to exceed 50 pages in length.
3

Plaintiff’s first Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Brief in Response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. #46] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendants shall have to and including November 23, 2015, within which to file
their reply.
So Ordered this date: 10/29/2015

Electronic Distribution to All Counsel of Record

4