Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00967-PAB-BNB.
December 17, 2008
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to File His Response to Defendant's Motion In Limine Out of Time [Docket No. 108]. Defendant does not oppose the motion. In order to understand the context of this request, a brief review of plaintiff's earlier requests for extension of time to respond to defendant's Motion in Limine [Docket No. 99] is appropriate.
On November 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the defendant's Motion in Limine [Docket No. 103]. As grounds for this motion, plaintiff cited "the approaching Thanksgiving holiday and the press of several other matters including upcoming oral arguments in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals." Section I.E of my Practice Standards for civil cases states that "[t]he following reasons do not constitute good cause [for extensions of time]: agreement of counsel, inconvenience to counsel or to the parties; the press of business; conflicts in scheduling; or practice as a sole practitioner." Nevertheless, the Court granted plaintiff's request for an extension to December 15, 2008 to file his response [Docket No. 104].
On December 15, 2008, plaintiff filed his second request for extension of time [Docket No. 105]. As grounds for this motion, plaintiff cited "the approaching Christmas holiday and the press of several other matters including upcoming oral arguments in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and covering work for one of the firm's partners who was on a scheduled vacation." Plaintiff requested until December 23, 2008 to file his response. The Court denied this request for plaintiff's failure to comply with Section I.E.2 of my Practice Standards, which requires that "[a]ny motion for extension of time shall be filed no later than three business days prior to the date the motion, response, reply, or other paper is due."
On December 16, 2008, plaintiff filed the motion to file his response out of time. As grounds for the motion, plaintiff states as follows: "Plaintiff's counsel had anticipated filing the Response on the December 15, 2008 deadline by working through this past weekend. Unfortunately, counsel had the flu and was unable to work (hence the late extension request)." Thus, plaintiff states that, but for counsel having the flu, he would have filed his response to the motion in limine on December 15, 2008. However, the second motion for extension of time says nothing about counsel having the flu. Instead, that request cites three other reasons why plaintiff could not file his response on the date that he asked for in his original motion for extension of time.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that, on or before December 19, 2008, plaintiff shall file an affidavit from plaintiff's counsel (a) explaining why his having the flu was not mentioned as a ground for plaintiff's second motion for extension of time and (b) identifying the dates and case numbers of his upcoming oral arguments in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.