Nagle v. Little
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-02156
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Nagle v. Little, Judge Provinzino allowed a late opposition and early summary-judgment motion, setting deadlines and a hearing.
Ryan Edward Nagle and Defendants Steven Richard Little and S.R.L. Law, P.L.L.C.; the order sets briefing permissions and deadlines for the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Nagle v. Little, Ryan Edward Nagle filed a response to Defendants’ summary-judgment motion after the deadline. He said he believed the deadline depended on a hearing date, which had not been set.
The court explained that federal and District of Minnesota rules required Nagle to respond within 21 days after Defendants filed their motion. The court also said Nagle had not received permission to file his own summary-judgment motion before discovery ended.
The court nevertheless granted Nagle leave to file his opposition late and permission to file his own motion early. Judge Laura M. Provinzino set deadlines for Defendants’ opposition and Nagle’s reply and ordered that a hearing be scheduled.
The detailed version
- Nagle v. Little · No. 0:24-cv-02156
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Defendants Steven Richard Little and S.R.L. Law, P.L.L.C. filed a motion for summary judgment on March 20, 2025. The court had previously ordered Plaintiff Ryan Edward Nagle to explain why Defendants’ motion should not be taken under advisement because he had not timely opposed it.
Nagle explained that he believed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1) gave him until 14 days before a hearing to respond. Because no hearing had been scheduled, he believed he did not yet need to file a response. He then filed a document that the court construed as both an opposition to Defendants’ motion and his own motion for summary judgment.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Rule 6(c)(1) did not establish the deadline for Nagle’s opposition because Defendants, not Nagle, filed the motion. The court instead applied District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(c)(2), which requires a party opposing a dispositive motion to file an opposition within 21 days after the motion and supporting documents are filed. Because Defendants filed their motion on March 20, 2025, Nagle’s opposition was due April 10, 2025 and was late.
The court also explained that it does not accept summary-judgment motions before discovery closes unless the filer first obtains permission. Discovery was scheduled to close on May 15, 2025. Defendants had received permission to file an early summary-judgment motion, but Nagle had not sought or received that permission before filing his motion.
Order
The court exercised its discretion not to strike Nagle’s late opposition or unauthorized motion. It construed his recent filings as both a timely opposition to Defendants’ motion and his own summary-judgment motion.
The court ordered that:
- Nagle was granted leave to file his opposition out of time. - Nagle was granted permission to file a summary-judgment motion before discovery closed. - Defendants could oppose Nagle’s motion by May 5, 2025; that filing would also serve as Defendants’ reply supporting their own motion. - Nagle could file a reply by May 19, 2025. - The court’s chambers would contact the parties to schedule a hearing on the motions.
The order did not decide either summary-judgment motion on the merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.