Opinion
3:98-CV-2228-R.
February 12, 2001.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Now before this Court is Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling and Motion for Extension of Time for Joint Motion Submission Deadline, filed December 12, 2000. For the reasons stated below, Magistrate Judge Kaplan's Order is AFFIRMED and the Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This case was originally filed on July 9, 1998 and assigned to The Honorable Robert Maloney. A dispositive motion deadline was set for October 22, 1999. The Defendant failed to meet this deadline. On August 29, 2000, the case was transferred to this Court. On September 11, 2000, this Court issued a Scheduling Order setting November 20, 2000 as the deadline for the joint submission of dispositive motions. On November 14, 2000, the Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of the Joint Motion Submission Deadline. On November 29, 2000, this Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Kaplan. Judge Kaplan held a hearing on the Motion on December 1, 2000. At that hearing Judge Kaplan ruled that the Defendant did not show good cause to extend the dispositive motion deadline. Accordingly, Judge Kaplan denied the Defendant's motion.ARGUMENT
A District Court can reconsider any pre-trial matter decided by a Magistrate Judge "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Defendant's primary argument in its Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling is that the ruling was contrary to law because good cause existed to extend the deadline. This Court disagrees and finds that Judge Kaplan's ruling is supported by the facts of this case.
At the hearing on Defendant's Motion, Defendant argued that good cause existed to extend the deadline because Defendant was confused by this Court's Scheduling Order. Defendant believed that its initial Motion for Summary Judgement, and not the entire Joint Submission, was due on November 20, 2000. The Defendant supported this argument by misrepresenting a discussion with one of this Court's law clerks in which the clerk is said to have criticized the scheduling order and suggested that the Defendant's confusion was warranted.
This argument fails to merit an extension for three reasons. First, the scheduling order in this case was issued to the Defendant on September 11, 2000. Defendant failed to provide an excuse for its negligence in discovering its "confusion" prior to November 14, 2000; six days before the Joint Submission was due. Second, the Scheduling Order includes a detailed description of the joint submission process and includes a list of "Critical Dates." Among these "critical dates" is the "Deadline for Joint Submission of Dispositive Motions" (emphasis added). On its face, the Order could not be more clear. Third, an inappropriate and incorrect citation to a conversation with one of this Court's law clerks does not suffice to explain the Defendant's own difficulties in reading and comprehending the Scheduling Order.
The Defendant next attempted to explain the fact that this is the second time it missed a dispositive motion deadline. Neither argument set forth by the Defendant sufficiently reduces the weight that Judge Kaplan may have given to this earlier negligence by the Defendant. Defendant first argued that it failed to adhere to the October 1999 deadline because there was an informal agreement among the parties to extend the deadline. At the hearing in front of Judge Kaplan, Defendant referenced various health issues that each party had been dealing with and in its brief to this Court, the Defendant referenced attached letters, scheduling orders and faxes in support of this "informal" agreement. However, this Court's review of the attached materials failed to uncover the existence of any such agreement.
Defendant's second reason for missing the October 1999 deadline is that its past experience with Judge Maloney led the Defendant to believe that the Judge's deadlines were somehow illusory. At the hearing in front of Judge Kaplan the Defendant stated, "my impression of Judge Maloney's court was that [it] really didn't matter . . . we had seen him consider and grant summary judgement motions largely against us that were, you know, a year, year and a half out of time." Transcript of Dec. 1, 2000 Hearing p. 5. This Court finds that it was more than reasonable for Judge Kaplan to reject this rationale.
In addition to refuting the factual basis for Judge Kaplan's ruling, the Defendant added two other arguments in favor of reversal. First, it argued that the Motion to Extend was automatically referred to Judge Kaplan in error and should have been decided by this Court. This argument is simply incorrect because this Court personally referred the Motion to Judge Kaplan in an Order dated November 29, 2000.
Next, the Defendant argues that Judge Kaplan ignored Local Rules favoring early and cost-effective disposition of cases. Defendant claims that the Motion should have been granted because it "could very well dispose of the entire case and remove it from this Court's April 2001 docket." Defendant's Objections p. 7. While it is true that the law favors the expedient and cost effective disposal of cases, adherence to filing deadlines is also an essential part of the efficient administration of our judicial system. Moreover, the Defendant admitted in the hearing on its Motion that at least some of the claims in this case might survive summary judgement. Therefore, the mere chance that the entire Summary Judgement Motion would be granted does not constitute good cause to extend the Defendant's filing deadline.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Kaplan's ruling is AFFIRMED and Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time for Joint Motion Submission Deadline is DENIED.