Taylor v. Western Southern Financial Group

Filing 10

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 9 ) is DENIED to the extent he seeks a further 14-day extension; and 2. Plaintiff shall file a Reply on or before midnight on February 18, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 02/12/13. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SHANNON TAYLOR,

:

Plaintiff,

:

Case No. 3:12mc00020

vs.

:

District Judge Timothy S. Black
Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

WESTERN SOUTHERN
FINANCIAL GROUP,

:
:

Defendant.
:

ORDER

This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #9), through counsel,
seeking a final 14-day extension of time to file a Reply to Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitrator’s Award. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he “is
continuously trying to catch up with scheduling’s [sic] and commitments on a wealth of
different cases, and additional time would be beneficial as to obtaining a breather so to
speak.” (Doc. #9, PageID at 74). He further explains that he seeks a 14-day extension of
time to file a Reply due to “unforeseeable circumstances.” Id. He has stayed up for more
than 60 hours researching and writing a brief in another case and two of his cases will most
likely end this week. Counsel identifies one case in which an all-day mediation is set to
occur tomorrow (February 13, 2013) and another case requiring him to be in Chicago,
Illinois in two days (on February 14, 2013) for oral argument before the United States Court

of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He further notes that he left a message with opposing
counsel notifying him of this request for an extension and has received no information about
whether Plaintiff’s Counsel’s present Motion is unopposed. He also notes that he will not
seek any further extension of time to file a Reply.
This is Plaintiff’s counsel’s fourth Motion asking for an extension of time to file a
Reply in this case. (Doc. #s 5, 6, 8). The Court’s Notation Order granting his Third
(Amended) Motion for Extension of Time informed him, “No further extensions of time will
be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances.” The particular circumstances counsel
describes do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify another 14-day
extension. At best for counsel, he describes his presently over-crowded work schedule
without providing any basis for concluding that extraordinary circumstances led to or
contributed to this problem. The circumstances he describes can frequently arise for
litigation attorneys, such a Plaintiff’s counsel, and do not by themselves constitute
extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify the present fourth request for an extension
of time. Counsel is doubtlessly well aware that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Rule 1.3, Ohio Rules of Professional
Conduct (effective Feb. 1, 2007) (italics in original).1 To accomplish this, “[a] lawyer must

1

“[T]he Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct govern in this district.” Big Idea Co. v. Parent
Care Res., LLC, 2:11-CV-1148, 2012 WL 4057216 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2012); see also S.D. Ohio Civ.
R. 83.3(h) and Rule IV(B), Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (“The Rules of Professional
Conduct adopted by this Court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the highest court of the
state in which this Court sits ....”).

2

control the lawyer’s work load so that each matter can be handled competently.” Id. (Official
Comment 2).
Accordingly, Counsel’s Fourth Motion for Extension of Time lacks merit. Yet
because the Federal District Courts prefer to decide each case on its merits, Counsel will be
afforded a FINAL brief extension. Counsel remains on NOTICE that his failure to file a
timely Reply as required by this Order may result in dismissal of this case for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #9) is DENIED to the
extent he seeks a further 14-day extension; and

2.

Plaintiff shall file a Reply on or before midnight on February 18, 2013.

February 12, 2013
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

3