Lerario v. NewYork-Presbyterian/Queens

Background

The plaintiff’s counsel asked the court to extend the deadline, after it had passed, for filing the plaintiff’s response to Cornell University’s motion to dismiss. Counsel timely uploaded documents on April 9, 2021, but later discovered that the wrong document had been submitted in response to Cornell’s motion. Counsel uploaded the correct document at 1:46 a.m., approximately one hour and 15 minutes after the deadline.

The letter states that the response to NewYork-Presbyterian’s motion was filed correctly and on time. Cornell opposed the request, NewYork-Presbyterian took no position, and the letter also refers to Dr. Fink as not having suffered prejudice. The opinion text does not explain Dr. Fink’s role.

Legal standard

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) permits a court to extend an expired deadline for good cause when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court also cited its authority to manage its proceedings. The factors discussed included the length of the delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the explanation had some merit.

Court’s ruling

The court found that counsel had not acted in bad faith, had corrected the filing promptly after discovering the error, and had offered a technological explanation with some merit. It also found no prejudice from the short delay. The court therefore marked the application “granted,” accepting the late filing of the plaintiff’s response to Cornell’s motion to dismiss. The text does not state how the motion to dismiss itself was decided.