Kidiavayi v. Leonard et al

Filing 41

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 33 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Defendant's 32 motion to strike is hereby DENIED. The Court's order at 30 is VACATED. Defendants may reply to Plaintiff's response no later than 2/7/17 re 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 *** 10 STANLEY KIDIAVAYI, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, et al., 14 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:16-cv-01202-KJD-NJK (Docket Nos. 32, 33) 15 16 Pending before Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 5, 17 2016, order granting Defendants’ motion for protective order. Docket No. 33. Also pending before 18 the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for protective order as 19 untimely. Docket No. 32. 20 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 On November 15, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for protective order on an emergency 22 basis. Docket No. 28. The Court declined to resolve the motion on an expedited basis and ordered 23 the parties to brief the motion according to the default time as set forth in LR 7-2(b). Docket No. 24 29. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for protective order was therefore due on December 25 2, 2016. See LR IC 3-1(a); LR 7-2(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (previous version). On December 5, 26 2016, when Plaintiff had failed to meet the deadline, the Court granted Defendants’ motion as 27 unopposed. Docket No. 30. One business day after it was due, Plaintiff filed a response to 28 Defendants’ motion. Docket No. 31. 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Plaintiff asks the Court to consider his untimely opposition to Defendant’s motion for 3 protective order and reconsider its order granting Defendants’ motion for protective order as 4 unopposed. Docket No. 33 (“Plaintiff asks this Court to prevent ‘manifest injustice’ which will 5 result if Plaintiff is not allowed to be heard on this issue”). The Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s 6 motion, Docket No. 33, as a motion for leave to file an untimely opposition brief. 7 To determine whether to allow the untimely filing of the opposition, the Court looks to 8 whether excusable neglect has been established in failing to comply with the already-established 9 deadline. In doing so, the Court considers: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the 10 reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the 11 length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the 12 nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). 13 Plaintiff submits that his untimely filing was the result of his counsel’s calendaring error. 14 Docket No. 33 at 1-2. The Court finds that the balancing of the equitable factors tilts in favor of 15 permitting the filing of Plaintiff’s response. The Court vacates its order granting Defendants’ motion 16 to allow Defendants to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response so that the Court can fully consider 17 Defendants’ motion. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Docket No. 33, is hereby GRANTED. 20 Defendant’s motion to strike, Docket No. 32, is hereby DENIED. The Court’s order at Docket No. 21 30 is VACATED. Defendants may reply to Plaintiff’s response no later than February 7, 2017. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: January 31, 2017 24 25 NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 2

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?