Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Construction Corp.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-00808
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Engineering & Construction Innovations v. Bradshaw Construction, Judge Leung denied Bradshaw’s request to file a late response to a discovery motion.
Bradshaw Construction Corporation’s late response to Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc.’s motion to compel was excluded from consideration. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute or impose a ruling on Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America.
What happened
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. asked the court to require Bradshaw Construction Corporation to produce certain documents. Bradshaw asked for permission to file its opposition after the deadline had passed.
Bradshaw’s lawyer said he was away at a trial that had lasted about two weeks. The court found that Bradshaw had not shown an adequate reason for the delay because three other attorneys were assigned to the case, and it found that the delay could prejudice the plaintiff before the scheduled hearing.
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Bradshaw’s motion and stated that the court would not consider Bradshaw’s late response. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute.
The detailed version
- Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Construction Corp. · No. 0:20-cv-00808
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 27, 2021
Background
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. filed a motion asking Bradshaw Construction Corporation to produce certain documents. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for April 29, 2021. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, Bradshaw’s response was due by April 22, 2021.
Bradshaw moved for permission to file its response after the deadline. Its counsel stated that he had been out of town for an approximately two-week trial that began on April 8, 2021. He asked plaintiff’s counsel whether Bradshaw could file its response on April 26, but plaintiff’s counsel did not agree. Bradshaw then filed the motion seeking leave and filed the proposed response.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) permits a court to extend an expired deadline when the party’s failure to act resulted from “excusable neglect.” The court considered four factors: possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the party’s reasonable control, and whether the party acted in good faith.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Bradshaw’s neglect was not excusable. Although one of Bradshaw’s attorneys was in trial, four attorneys were assigned to the case. Bradshaw did not explain why the other three attorneys could not contact plaintiff’s counsel or the court before the deadline. The court also found that considering the late filing three days before the hearing could prejudice Engineering & Construction Innovations, that Bradshaw had not shown the delay was outside its reasonable control, and that Bradshaw had not acted in good faith because it placed the main blame for the delay on the plaintiff.
Disposition
The court denied Bradshaw Construction Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Instanter. The court stated that it would not consider Bradshaw’s untimely response. The order did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.