Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-02798-PAB-MJW.
November 19, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Shorten Time to File its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Objection to the Magistrate's Order Granting Defendant's Second Motion to Strike [Docket No. 158]. Defendant informs the Court that it intends to serve plaintiffs with a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) and requests that the Court shorten the 21-day "safe harbor" period afforded by the rule to ten days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) (affording "21 days after service or within another time the court sets" to withdraw or correct a challenged filing). Assuming the Court may shorten the period, defendant provides no persuasive argument justifying doing so in this case. Furthermore, according to defendant, no such motion for sanctions has been served on plaintiffs. As a result, the motion for sanctions may not need to be filed.
Defendant also requests an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' objection to an order issued by the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter. Defendant claims that it needs an additional sixteen days to respond to plaintiffs' objection "in case Plaintiffs decide to withdraw or appropriately correct the material misrepresentations contained in their Objection." Docket No. 158 at 4. If plaintiffs do amend their objection before the deadline for defendant's response and if defendant believes it needs additional time to respond, defendant may file a motion for additional time. Until then, its request is premature to the extent it is based on what plaintiff may do in the future.
Defendant also contends it needs a copy of the transcript of the October 18, 2010 hearing, which defendant expects to receive on November 25, 2010, before responding to plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's order. Defendant, however, does not explain why it needs until December 10, 2010 to respond. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Shorten Time to File its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Objection to the Magistrate's Order Granting Defendant's Second Motion to Strike [Docket No. 158] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's request to shorten the time to file its Rule 11 motion is denied. Defendant may file a response to plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's order on or before Monday, November 29, 2010.
DATED November 19, 2010.