BORDAMONTE v. LORA et al

Filing 106

ORDER: Ordered that Plaintiff's Certification in Opposition (ECF 103) is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 5/26/20. (gh, )

Case 2:17-cv-02642-WJM-MF Document 106 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROY BORDAMONTE,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 2:17-cv-02642 (WJM)

V.

ORDER
HECTOR LORA, LUIS GUZMAN, GARY
SCHAER, ALEX BLANCO, RALPH
DANNA, CARLOS FIGUEROA, and the
CITY OF PASSAIC,
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
On January 9, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge F alk entered an order setting a
scheduling for summary judgment briefing in this matter. ECF No. $8. All motions for
summary judgment were to be filed by January 27, 2020, opposition was due by February
27, 2020, and replies were to be filed by March 12, 2020. Id. On January 14, 202t).
Defendant City of Passaic requested a two-week extension to lile its summary judgment
motion because of an unforeseeable medical situation, which the Court granted. ECF
Nos. $9 & 90. Counsel for Defendant Ralph Danna filed a summary judgment motion on
January 23, 2020. ECF No. 91. Counsel for Defendants Carlos Figueroa, Luis Guzman,
1-lector Lora, and Gary Schaer, counsel for City of Passiac, and counsel for Alex Blanco
filed niotions for summary judgment on February 11, 2020.
On March 24, 2020, this Court entered Standing Order 2020-04, which ordered all
filing deadlines in civil matters that fell between March 25, 2020 and April 30, 2020
extended by 45 days, unless the presiding judge in an individual case directed otherwise.
In re: Additional Measures Due to the Exigent Circumstances Created by Covid-19,
Standing Order 2020-04 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2020). On April 9, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel
filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Counsel for
Defendant City of Passiac filed a letter objecting to Defendant’s untimely opposition.
While the langciage of the Court’s order extending the deadline seems to apply oniy to the
City of Passiac’s motion for summary judgment, the Court accepts as governing Defendants’
understanding that the extension applied to all briefing deadlines—all summary judgment
motions were to be tiled by February II, 2020, opposition was to be filed by March 12, 2020,
and replies were due by March 26, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-02642-WJM-MF Document 106 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2284

ECF No. 97. In light of the ongoing Covid-19 global pandemic—despite the lct that
under the extended briefing schedule. Plaintiffs opposition was due on March 12. 2020.
before the Courfs standing order of March 24, 2020 and that Plaintifl did not seek leave
of Court to file his untimely opposition—the Court accepted Plaintilis untimely April 9.
2020 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion fbr Summary judgment and extended
Defendants’ t-eply deadlines until May ii, 2020. ECF No. 98. All Defendants filed their
reply briefs on May ii, 2020. ECF Nos. 99-102.
On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed signed certifications of Plaintiff Roy Bordamonte
and witness Richard Diaz. ECF No. 103. These certifications were included as part of
Plaintiffs opposition, but were unsigned. ECF Nos. 96-8 & 96-li. In his May 19, 2020
filing, counsel for Plaintiff states that he “was unaware that [he] had filed the wrong
document; none of [his] colleagues contacted [him] to point out the oversight. Both were
ECF No. 103. On May 20, 2020.
signed on April 8, and in [his] possession that day
Counsel for Defendants City of Passaic and Lieutenant Ralph Danna filed letters
requesting that the Court reject Plaintiffs May 19, 2020 filing because: (1) Plaintiff filed
the signed certifications after all Defendants filed their reply briefs and without leave of
court; (2) the certifications do not comply with federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which
only permits affidavits or declarations from thct witnesses in connection with summary
judgments, not certifications; and (3) the signature pages are photographs of signature
pages, not actual signature pages. ECF Nos. 104 & 105.
...“

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that: “When an act may or
must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause extend the time on
motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable
neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). When Plaintiff filed his Motion
in Opposition, ECF No. 96. on April 9. 2020, nearly a month after the extended deadline.
he did not file a motion seeking an extension of time. Nevertheless, the Court accepted
his filing. Plaintiff seeks to supplement his opposition with certifications that are
purportedly signed after all Defendants filed their replies pursuant to a revised schedule.
Because Plaintiff filed no motion pursuant to Rcile 6(h)( I )(B), or sought leave of Court of
any kind, the Court cannot consider Plaintiffs certifications.
IT IS on this day of May 2020, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Certification in
Opposition, ECF 103, is STRICKEN. Summary judgment briefing in th patter is
closed.