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)

Download PDF
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?