Opinion
4:02CV3260.
January 31, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO FILINGS 110 AND 111
On August 17, 2004, I entered an order granting the defendant leave to file a reply to the plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See filing 98.) The defendant was given leave to file its reply within thirty days of the date of my order resolving the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's summary judgment response. (See id.) On September 24, 2004, I entered an order granting in part the defendant's motion to strike. (See filing 107.) On October 25, 2004, the defendant filed its reply to the plaintiff's summary judgment response. (See filings 110 and 111.) The plaintiff now objects to the defendant's reply, arguing that it was not filed timely. I disagree.
In computing the defendant's deadline for filing its reply, I exclude "the day of the . . . event . . . from which the designated period of time begins to run." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Since my order resolving the defendant's motion to strike was dated September 24, 2004, the designated period of time begins to run on that date, and I exclude it from my calculation. I count thirty days from September 24, 2004, and I find that the thirtieth day is October 24, 2004. Since October 24, 2004, is a Sunday, it must be excluded from my calculation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Therefore, the defendant's deadline for filing its reply was October 25, 2004. The defendant's reply was filed on this date, and I find that it was filed in good time. IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Objection to Filing No. 110 and No. 111," (filing 112), is denied.