Snyder v. Phelps et al

Filing 237

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 236 Reply to Response to Motion, 235 Reply to Response to Motion by Fred W. Phelps, Sr, Westboro Baptist Church, Inc.. Responses due by 1/4/2008 (Katz, Jonathan)

Download PDF
Snyder v. Phelps et al Doc. 237 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION ALBERT SNYDER, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:06-cv-1389-RDB FRED W. PHELPS, SR.; SHIRLEY L. PHELPS-ROPER; REBEKAH A. PHELPS-DAVIS; and, WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., Defendants. MOTION OF DEFENDANTS WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH AND FRED W. PHELPS, SR., TO TREAT REPLY MOTIONS AS TIMELY FILED Defendants Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. ("WBC") and Fred W. Phelps, Sr., by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully move, for the following reasons, to treat as timely filed their replies ("Replies") to Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendants' Motion to Stay and consolidated Post-Trial Motions: 1. Defendants' Replies were due December 17, 2007, as follows: eleven days under the local rules to reply, and three additional days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff filed his reply on December 3, 2007. 2. Defendants' Stay reply was filed electronically eighteen minutes late, at 12:18 a.m. on December 18, 2007. Defendant's reply regarding the remaining posttrial motions was filed thirty-one minutes late, at 12:31 a.m. 3. Undersigned counsel did not anticipate any delay in filing arose, Defendants' and was with Replies, but that by unexpectedly a technical Word further the affected of difficulty freezing his Microsoft program, which necessitated taking time to figure out how to unfreeze Microsoft Word. 4. This is the first time that any defendant in this civil action has sought such relief after the filing of a document with the Court. Undersigned counsel anticipates that this is an abberration that will not be repeated. 5. This filing delay amounts to no more than one-half hour; no parties will be prejudiced by the granting of this Motion, and the interests of justice will be served by permitting Defendants' Motion to Stay and consolidated post-trial motions to be ruled on their merits. 6. Local Rule 105(9) directs parties to attempt to obtain the consent of other counsel before filing a motion to extend a motion filing deadline. Prior to filing this Motion, undersigned counsel left a voice mail with Plaintiff's counsel Sean Summers on December 18, 2007, seeking said consent - and confirming that he always will extend similar return courtesies -and will 2 update the Court pro with se Mr. Summers's reply. to It is inferred Motion, that as defendants will consent be served this the their interests to extent that Defendants are successful on their stay motion and consolidated post-trial motions. 7. Section XI of the Court's Electronic Filing Requirements And Procedures Manual recognizes that at times litigants due to will be "unable to timely with file a document technical system problems or [the either the own electronic filing litigant's] system," in which case the litigant is permitted to file a request for enlargement of time. The foregoing provision recognizes that technological delays sometimes will arise with computer systems. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully move to treat their Replies concerning their Motion to Stay and consolidated Post-Trial Motions as timely filed. 3 Respectfully submitted, ___/s/__________ Jonathan L. Katz D.Md. Bar No. 07007 1400 Spring St., Suite 410 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 495-4300 Fax: (301) 495-8815 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by the CM/ECF filing system on December 18, 2007, to: Sean E. Summers, Esq. Craig Tod Trebilcock, Esq. Becky Phelps-Davis (by mail only) 1216 Cambridge Topeka, KS 66604 Shirley Phelps-Roper (by mail only) 3640 Churchill Road Topeka, KS 66604 ____/s/_____________________________ Jonathan L. Katz 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?