DeLuca v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
Filing
62
OPINION & ORDER: On September 6, 2016, plaintiff's counsel filed a letter motion requesting that this Court excuse the late filings. ECF No. 56. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants plaintiff's request to excuse her untimely motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to excuse the late filing of portions of her motion for partial summary judgment. The Court further grants plaintiff's request to file on ECF, in unredacted form, those portions of plaintiff's partial summary judgment that were previously filed in redacted form. Plaintiff shall file these unredacted documents by September 28, 2016. Defendant shall file responses, if any, to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment by October 14, 2016. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/22/2016) (kl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEBBY DELUCA
Plaintiff,
No. 12-cv-8239
v.
OPINION & ORDER
SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC.
Defendant.
This Court issued a case management order on June 29, 2016, which
required the parties in the above-captioned matter to file any dispositive motions
by September 1, 2016. On September 1, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of motion
for partial summary judgment ("Notice of Motion") and a memorandum of law in
support of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment ("Memorandum").
Plaintiff's counsel, however, failed to timely file other portions of plaintiff's
summary judgment materials. See ECF Nos. 53-55.
On September 6, 2016, plaintiff's counsel filed a letter motion requesting
that this Court excuse the late filings. ECF No. 56. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court grants plaintiff's request to excuse her untimely motion for
summary judgment.
Discussion
The parties' dispute involves two central inquiries. First, the Court must
decide whether plaintiff's Notice of Motion included a timely request for an
extension of time to file her motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A). Second, if plaintiff did not so timely request,
the Court must decide whether plaintiff's failure to file may be overlooked as a
product of "excusable neglect" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).
Whether Plaintiff Requested an Extension of Time Prior to the
I.
Deadline
Plaintiff's counsel argues that the Notice of Motion included a request for
extension of time to file dispositive motions before the September 1 deadline had
expired. See ECF No. 56. Courts have broad discretion to grant extensions of
time when parties make such requests "before the original time" expires. Fed R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also Choi v. Chem. Bank, 939 F. Supp. 304, 309 (S.D.N.Y.
1996).
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, however, did not include a request for an
extension of time to file dispositive motions. It states, in relevant part:
In light of the confidentiality order entered in this case, Plaintiff also
respectfully requests permission to temporarily file the
accompanying materials (other than the Memorandum of Law)
under seal, until the Court determines (as Plaintiff believes it will)
that the materials should be refiled not under seal.
ECF No. 51. The Court cannot reasonably construe this as a request to grant an
extension of time to file dispositive motions. Rather, plaintiff's Notice of Motion
requests permission to file an unredacted version of her summary judgment
2
materials after a redacted version of those same materials had been timely filed.
Thus, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) does not govern this issue and
plaintiff will therefore have to demonstrate that her counsel's failure to timely file
was a result of "excusable neglect" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1)(B).
II.
Whether Plaintiff's Conduct Constitutes "Excusable Neglect"
Although plaintiff failed to meet this Court's deadline for filing dispositive
motions, her untimeliness may be excused if the Court nevertheless finds
"excusable neglect" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Courts
consider four factors in determining whether excusable neglect exists: (1) the
danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including
whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the
movant acted in good faith. Tancredi v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 200, 227-28
(2d Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507
U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
Although the Supreme Court stated in Pioneer that excusable neglect is an
"elastic concept," 507 U.S. at 392, the Second Circuit has taken a "hard line"
approach in applying this standard. For example, the Second Circuit has
repeatedly held that "delay attributable solely to a [party's] failure to act with
diligence cannot be 'characterized as excusable neglect."' Padilla v. Maersk Line,
Ltd., 721 F.3d 77, 83-84 (2d Cir. 20 13) (citing Dominguez v. United States, 583
F.2d 615, 617 (2d Cir. 1978)).
3
In this case, plaintiff argues that her neglect was caused, at least in part,
by defendant's production of inaccurate salary data during discovery. The parties
entered into a confidentiality agreement on February 27, 2014 ("Confidentiality
Agreement") that requires each party to obtain consent before filing any
documents marked as "Confidential." If the filing party cannot obtain consent,
she may file the confidential document under seal and/ or in a redacted form.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant's inaccurate salary data necessitated that her
counsel file corrective data as exhibits to her motion for partial summary
judgment. Plaintiff's counsel did not realize this corrective data was marked as
"Confidential" until several hours before the September 1 filing deadline.
Believing that it was too late to obtain defendant's consent, plaintiff's counsel
began redacting the confidential documents but did not complete this lengthy
process until "a few hours after" the deadline had passed.
These facts suggest that plaintiff's delay was not solely attributable to her
or her counsel's neglect. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to excuse
the late filing of portions of her motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
further grants plaintiff's request to file on ECF, in unredacted form, those
portions of plaintiff's partial summary judgment that were previously filed in
redacted form. Plaintiff shall file these unredacted documents by September 28,
2016. Defendant shall file responses, if any, to plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment by October 14, 2016.
4
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
September 22, 2016
~p~
Thomas P. Griesa
United States District Judge
5
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?