Kinser v. United Methodist Agency for the Retarded
Filing
39
ORDER granting 37 Motion for Reconsideration Of Extension Of Time To File Response To Defendant's 34 Motion To Strike. Response due 7/8/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/19/2014. (tmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-175-RJC-DCK
BOBBY J KINSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED METHODIST AGENCY FOR THE
RETARDED - WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., d/b/a UMAR,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For
Reconsideration Of Extension Of Time To File Response To Defendant’s Motion To Strike And
Incorporated Memorandum Of Law” (Document No. 37) filed June 18, 2014 and “Defendant’s
Response…” (Document No. 38) filed on June 19, 2014. The pending motion has been referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, and applicable authority,
the undersigned will grant the motion.
As an initial matter, the undersigned observes that while Plaintiff shows good cause for
being unable to meet deadlines between June 23, 2014 and on or about July 4-8, 2014, neither
“Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To File Response to Defendant’s Motion To
Strike…” (Document No. 35), nor the instant motion, offer any explanation for why Plaintiff
could not file a timely response to the “Motion To Strike…” by June 16, 2014. See (Document
No. 37). Moreover, Plaintiff waited until the last moment to seek an extension of time and to
attempt to confer with opposing counsel. (Document No. 35, p.2; Document No. 38). Not
surprisingly, Plaintiff failed in his original motion and the instant motion, to show that the parties
have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement, and to set forth
which issues remain unresolved. See Local Rule 7.1 (B).
The undersigned further observes that the instant motion includes an allegation that
Defendant also failed to satisfy Local Rule 7.1 (B) when it filed its pending “Motion To
Strike…” (Document No. 34) on May 30, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel contends that an attorney
from Defendant’s firm, who apparently has not appeared in this case and is/was unknown to
Plaintiff’s counsel, sent him an email on the afternoon of Friday May 30, informing him
Defendant would file a motion to strike, and inquiring whether he would consent. (Document
No. 37). Plaintiff’s counsel contends he did not receive opposing counsel’s email until June 3,
2014.
While a last minute email or voice mail message may appear to satisfy the requirement
that a party “attempted to confer,” the undersigned is not persuaded that such action indicates
that a party has adequately “attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement and set
forth which issues remain unresolved.” Local Rule 7.1 (B). Such last minute “attempts to
confer” also provide little, if any, opportunity for parties to have a meaningful exchange
regarding pending disputes or motions. The litigants, their counsel, and the Court, typically
benefit from appropriate consultation prior to filing a motion. If nothing else, the Court is made
aware of whether a motion is consented to, or a response in opposition will be filed, thus
promoting judicial economy and efficiency. It appears that counsel for both sides in this lawsuit
have failed to appropriately confer.
It is common for motions filed in this district to be summarily denied if they fail to
indicate that the requirement of consultation has been satisfied. Under the circumstances, the
2
Court will allow Plaintiff the requested extension. However, both sides are respectfully advised
to carefully abide by the Federal Rules and the Local Rules going forward. Failure to abide by
the Rules may result in sanctions. See (Document No. 8, p.10).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of
Extension Of Time To File Response To Defendant’s Motion To Strike And Incorporated
Memorandum Of Law” (Document No. 37) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a response to
Defendant’s “Motion to Strike…” (Document No. 34) on or before July 8, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 19, 2014
3
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?