United States of America v. Stanley

Filing 51

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Strike. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/30/2012 (PL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
United States of America

PLAINTIFF(S)

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11cv117-DCB-RHW
Markus Brent Stanley

DEFENDANT(S)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
One of the two documents pending before the Court is the
Defendant’s

Motion

to

Strike

Plaintiff’s

Untimely

Motion

for

Summary Judgment and Supporting Documentation [docket no. 41].
Therein, Defendant Markus Stanley asks the Court to strike the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket no. 32] because it
was filed fewer than ten minutes after the expiration of the
deadline

for

filing

dispositive

motions.

In

response,

the

Government admits its error but suggests that its good faith
attempt to comply with the Court’s deadline warrants neither the
characterization nor the result suggested by the Defendant.
The decision to entertain a tardy motion is discretionary, and
the Court chooses to exercise that discretion. Edwards v. Cass
Cnty., Tex., 919 F.2d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 1990). The Government
attempted to comply with the Court’s deadlines, and the Court sees
no reason to impose what would be a draconian penalty for an eight
minute delay, which may or may not be partially attributable to the
peculiarities of the Court’s electronic filing system. However, out
of

concern

that

Stanley’s

response

to

the

merits

of

the

Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment may have been neglected

because of his opposition to its filing, the Court will allow
Stanley additional time to file a supplemental response to the
dispositive motion. The Government also will be permitted to file
a rebuttal to any response in accordance with the local rules.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s

Untimely

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

and

Supporting Documentation [docket no. 41] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Defendant may supplement his
Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment [docket
no. 42] and Memorandum in Support [docket entry no. 43] on or
before December 14, 2012.
So ORDERED, this the 30th day of November, 2012.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2