Altergott v. Senn et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's ECF No. 60 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

ALLEN FRED ALTERGOTT,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00159-RCJ-WGC

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

ORDER

SENNA, et. al.,

10

Re: ECF No. 60

Defendants.

11
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Supplemental Response in

12
13

Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Untimely Pursuant to Rule 5.

14

(Electronic Case Filing (ECF) No. 60.)
On August 18, 2016, the court held a hearing regarding what the court construed as

15
16

Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

17

(See Minutes at ECF No. 52.) The court ordered Defendants to submit the requested

18

documentation by Tuesday August 23, 2016; gave Plaintiff up to September 2, 2016, to file a

19

supplemental memorandum; and, gave Defendants’ until September 12, 2016 to file a response.

20

(Id. at 2.)

21

On August 24, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of compliance with the court’s order

22

indicating they had provided the documentation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed his supplemental

23

memorandum on September 6, 2016. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants filed their response on

24

September 13, 2016. (ECF No. 57.)
The same day that the court issued its report and recommendation on Defendants’ motion

25
26

for summary judgment (ECF No. 63), September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed this motion to strike

27

Defendants’ supplemental response.

28

///

1

It is true that Defendants’ filed the subject documentation as well as their supplemental

2

response a day later than the court-imposed deadlines; however, Plaintiff’s supplemental

3

response (which Defendants’ supplemental brief was to address) was also filed four days late.

4

Both parties are admonished to comply with the court’s filing deadlines in the future or risk that

5

the court will not consider their filings. In this instance, however, there was no prejudice as a

6

result of the late filings, and the court exercised its discretion to consider the late filings of both

7

Defendants and Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 60) is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: September 29, 2016.

10
11
12
13

_________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-