Create-A-Pack Foods Inc v. Batterlicious Cookie Dough Company et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 11/17/2021. The defendants must file their response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, combined with their cross motion for summary judgment, by no later than November 29, 2021. Plaintiff may respond and reply no later than January 5, 2022. The defendants may reply no later than January 19, 2022. (cc: all counsel)(mlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CREATE-A-PACK FOODS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 20-CV-499
BATTERLICIOUS COOKIE
DOUGH COMPANY, CLAUDIA G.
LEVY and STEPHEN G. LEVY,
Defendants.
ORDER
On February 17, 2021, this court issued an amended scheduling order requiring
all dispositive motions be filed by October 15, 2021. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff Create-APack Foods filed a motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2021. (ECF No. 33.) On
October 21, 2021, the defendants requested an extension of time to file their response to
Create-A-Pack Foods’ October 15 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) In
making that request, the defendants also asked the court to allow their response to be
combined with a cross motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38 at 1.)
The court granted defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their
response to Create-A-Pack Foods’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) but
Case 2:20-cv-00499-WED Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3 Document 44
reserved ruling on the defendants’ request to combine their response with a cross
motion for summary judgment until it heard from Create-A-Pack Foods (ECF No. 42).
The matter has now been fully briefed and is ready for resolution.
Create-A-Pack Foods argues that allowing the defendants to combine their
response with a cross motion for summary judgment extends “the deadline for them to
file a motion for summary judgment.” (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Granting such an extension
would be inappropriate, it argues, because the defendants filed their motion after the
time for filing dispositive motions had expired and they have not demonstrated that
they “failed to act because of excusable neglect” as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(ii) requires. (ECF No. 40 at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)).) The defendants reply that
allowing them to combine their response with a cross motion for summary judgment
would allow for “the most efficient process.” (ECF No. 43 at 3.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides that this court may grant
extensions of time for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). “Judicial efficiency may constitute
‘good cause’ for an extension of time.” White v. Marshall, No. 07-CV-892, 2009 WL
230096, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 30, 2009). Because the court agrees that allowing the
defendants additional time to move for summary judgment may further judicial
efficiency, the defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants must file their response to
the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, combined with their cross motion for
2
Case 2:20-cv-00499-WED Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3 Document 44
summary judgment, by no later than November 29, 2021. Plaintiff may respond and
reply no later than January 5, 2022. The defendants may reply no later than January 19,
2022.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of November, 2021.
_________________________
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
3
Case 2:20-cv-00499-WED Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3 Document 44
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?