Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises v. Audible, Judge Furman allowed plaintiffs’ late filing of disputed facts and ordered the clerk to terminate ECF No. 250.
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC, whose late filing was treated as timely; Audible, Inc., which did not object.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Golden Unicorn Enterprises and Big Dog Books asked the court to treat their late-filed statement of undisputed facts and exhibits as timely. The filing supported their opposition to Audible’s summary-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum before midnight on April 5, 2023, but technical problems delayed filing the statement and exhibits. They shared the materials with Audible and the court before midnight, filed the statement without exhibits shortly after midnight, and filed the complete materials at 2:20 p.m. on April 6. Audible did not object.
Judge Furman granted the application and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 250. The order allowed the plaintiffs’ filing to be treated as timely.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 10, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC were required to file a memorandum opposing Audible, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, a counterstatement of undisputed material facts, and supporting exhibits by April 5, 2023. The plaintiffs successfully filed their memorandum at about 11:04 p.m. on April 5. They reported that technical errors in one or more exhibit files prevented them from successfully filing the counterstatement and exhibits before midnight.
The plaintiffs shared the counterstatement and exhibits with the court and Audible shortly before midnight. They filed the counterstatement without exhibits several minutes after midnight and later filed the counterstatement with all exhibits at 2:20 p.m. on April 6. The plaintiffs asked the court to treat the filing as timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which permits a court to extend a deadline after it expires for excusable neglect. Audible stated that it had no objection.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 250. The order did not separately state findings about each factor used to evaluate excusable neglect, but it granted the plaintiffs’ request to deem the counterstatement of undisputed material facts timely filed.
Effect
The ruling concerns the timing and filing status of the plaintiffs’ materials opposing Audible’s summary-judgment motion. It does not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.