McArthur v. Alameda County Public Defender's Office

Background

The deadline for dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims or the case—was August 3, 2023. Francis McArthur filed a motion for partial summary judgment at 12:03 a.m. on August 4, with exhibits filed later that morning. He filed a corrected version of the motion and exhibits at 12:49 p.m. and then moved for an extension of time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).

McArthur’s counsel attributed the delay to the volume of exhibits and technical difficulties preparing them for filing. The filings included more than 3,000 pages of exhibits. The court noted that many exhibits did not appear to be cited in the motion and that the filings included overlong and unnecessary materials without specific page citations.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 6(b) allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when a party failed to act because of “excusable neglect.” The court considered the four relevant factors: 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 that prejudice to the defendant was not apparent, but concluded that the late filing negatively affected the proceedings because of the volume of the materials and the court’s limited resources. It found that the cited reasons did not justify the delay, particularly because many of the exhibits were not cited. The court also rejected the apparent argument that having only two attorneys was a sufficient reason, noting that counsel had known about the deadline since March 21, 2023. Finally, the court said it was unclear whether counsel had acted in good faith, in part because counsel had recently been warned about another late filing.

Ruling

Judge Kandis Westmore found no good cause, denied McArthur’s motion for an extension of time, and struck both his motion for partial summary judgment and his corrected motion for summary judgment as untimely. The court did not decide the merits of the requested summary judgment.

The court also directed all parties to file future papers on time, limit exhibits to the evidence supporting their positions, and provide pincites—specific page citations—to the relevant evidence. The court stated that it would not review exhibit pages that were not specifically cited in a brief or citations that referred to entire exhibits.