Fairley v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
ORDER DENYING 16 Defendant's Motion to Strike, and GRANTING 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Retroactively Enlarge the Filing Time to File a Response. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 10/3/2014. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANTHONY B. FAIRLEY,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs response to
defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 16] and plaintiffs motion to retroactively extend
the filing time to respond to defendant's motion [DE 17]. For the reasons stated herein,
defendant's motion is DENIED and plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Defendant filed a summary judgment motion on March 31,2014. [DE 14]. Accordingly,
plaintiffs response was due by April24, 2014. Plaintiff did not file his response until June 20,
2014. After the filing time has expired, extensions of time can only be granted "if the party failed
to act because of excusable neglect." FED. R. Crv. P. 6(b)(l)(B). When evaluating excusable
neglect, a court considers "the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay
and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it
was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith."
Gaskins v. BFI Waste Services, 281 F.App'x 255,260 (4th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting
Pioneer Jnv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Td. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
After considering the relevant factors, the Court finds the neglect in this case excusable.
The delay is neither lengthy, nor does it prejudice defendants. Counsel was inattentive, but did
not act in bad faith. Accordingly, defendant's motion to strike [DE 16] is DENIED and
plaintiffs motion to retroactively enlarge the filing time to respond to the summary judgment
motion [DE 17] is GRANTED.
day of October, 2014.
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?