Catipovic v. Turley et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying without prejudice 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Resistance to 68 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Branimir Catipovic. Catipovic may refile the Motion for Extension of Summary Judgment Resistance in compliance with Rule 56(d) of the FRCP and Local Rule 56(h) if filed not later than 8/27/2013. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 8/23/13. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRANIMIR CATIPOVIC,
No. C 11-3074-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK TURLEY, RONALD FAGEN,
and FAGEN, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESIST DEFENDANT TURLEY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

___________________________
This case is before me on plaintiff Catipovic’s August 21, 2013, Motion For
Extension Of Summary Judgment Resistance Deadline (docket no. 74). In his Motion,
Catipovic seeks a 30-day extension, to September 30, 2013, to resist defendant Turley’s
Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 68). Catipovic asserts that the extension is
necessary to accommodate the international video depositions of defendant Turley and
several third-party witnesses, which are scheduled for September 3-5, 2013, to receive
and review transcripts of those depositions, and to prepare a full and complete
resistance. Catipovic also notes that Turley’s Motion For Summary Judgment was filed
well before the discovery deadline and the dispositive motions deadline, so that the
requested extension will not interfere with the scheduled trial, set to begin April 14,
2014, or require resetting any other pretrial deadlines. Catipovic acknowledges that
Turley’s counsel had been consulted and does not consent to the requested extension.
On August 23, 2013, Turley did, indeed, file a Resistance (docket no. 75) to
Catipovic’s request for an extension of his deadline to resist Turley’s Motion For
Summary Judgment. Turley argues that the delays in the scheduling of the depositions

that Catipovic argues necessitate an extension of his deadline to file his resistance are
the result of Catipovic’s refusal of Turley’s offers to be deposed in Hungary, litigation
of whether or not Turley should be compelled to appear for depositions in the United
States, an eventual court order ruling that Turley did not have to appear for depositions
in the United States, and the scheduling of Turley’s deposition in Hungary or by
videoconference, as Turley had originally offered. Turley also argues that Catipovic’s
request for an extension of his deadline to resist the Motion For Summary Judgment
does not comply with either Rule 56(d) (formerly 56(f)) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or Local Rule 56(h) of the Northern District of Iowa, because no affidavit or
declaration satisfying certain requirements of the rules has been filed with Catipovic’s
Motion.
I conclude that Catipovic’s Motion is not in the nature of a routine request for a
brief extension of a deadline for good cause, within the meaning of Local Rule 7(k), for
example, because counsel is subject to conflicting deadlines in other matters or is
otherwise temporarily unavailable to respond in a timely manner, but a request for an
extension of time to respond to a summary judgment motion in order to complete
further discovery.

See, e.g., Community Voice, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Commc’n

Corp., No. C 12–4048–MWB, 2012 WL 3043064, *1-*2 (July 25, 2012). As such, it
does not comply with the requirements of either Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Local Rule 56(h). Consequently, Catipovic’s present Motion will be
denied without prejudice to reassertion in full compliance with applicable rules, with
the exception that, if refiled by the deadline below, Catipovic’s motion for an extension
of time to resist Turley’s Motion For Summary Judgment will be deemed timely filed,
notwithstanding that it was not filed within the fourteen days of the filing of Turley’s
Motion For Summary Judgment, as required by Local Rule 56(h).

2

THEREFORE, plaintiff Catipovic’s August 21, 2013, Motion For Extension Of
Summary Judgment Resistance Deadline (docket no. 74) is denied without prejudice
to refiling in compliance with Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 56(h), but if filed not later than August 27, 2013, it shall be deemed
timely filed, notwithstanding the deadline for such motions in Local Rule 56(h).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2013.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

3