Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Background

Novartis filed a motion for leave to file a second summary-judgment motion on November 26, 2019. Under the applicable local rule, Plexxikon’s opposition was due December 9, 2019. Plexxikon filed its opposition on December 10, one day late, and asked the court to extend the deadline and accept the filing.

Plexxikon explained that, after a case-management conference, its counsel prepared an internal summary of upcoming deadlines that incorrectly listed December 10 as the opposition deadline. Calendaring staff used that summary to change the date in the firm’s calendar, and counsel relied on the incorrect date when filing the opposition. Counsel discovered the error after reviewing Novartis’s reply.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend a deadline after it expires when the party’s failure to act resulted from “excusable neglect.” Courts consider the possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.

The court found excusable neglect. Novartis did not argue in its reply that accepting the opposition would prejudice it. The delay was only one day and, according to the court, would not affect the proceedings. The court also found that the delay resulted from an unlikely series of calendaring errors and that Plexxikon acted in good faith.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Plexxikon’s motion to extend time. The court allowed Plexxikon’s December 10, 2019 opposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and the Northern District of California’s local rules. The order addressed only the late filing; it did not decide whether Novartis could file a second summary-judgment motion or resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.