Tiscareno et al v. Frasier et al

Filing 167

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Orderdenying 152 Motion to Stay; denying 155 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 10/14/2011. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ABBY TISCARENO, et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:07-CV-336

LORI FRASIER, et al.,

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant Anderson’s Motion and
Memorandum to Stay Discovery and to strike the joinder filed by Defendants IHC and Beerman
(Pls.’ Mot. Strike) (Dkt. No. 158). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ motions should be
stricken because they were filed late. (Pls.’ Mot. Strike, 2.) Indeed, the magistrate judge set a
deadline for motions to stay discovery for September 9, 2011. (Dkt. No. 135.) However,
Defendant Anderson failed to submit such a motion until September 22, 2011, and Defendants
Beerman and IHC until September 23, 2011.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), the court may extend a deadline “before the original
time or its extension expires; or on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.” At no time has the court received such a motion from
Defendants. Rather, Defendant Anderson’s counsel has simply stated in a footnote in its
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike that the due date for the motion was “mis-calendared,”
and that striking the motions would be improper due to some distinction between “substance”
and “form.” (Opp’n, 2 n.1)(Dkt. No. 161). Without a motion for an extension of time before the
1

court explaining counsels’ “excusable neglect,” Defendants’ argument is rejected. The Motion
to Stay (Dkt. No. 152) and Motion for Joinder (Dkt. No. 155) are DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion to
strike (Dkt. No. 155) is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

2