GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-09321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GateGuard v. Amazon, Judge Figueredo deemed four slightly late motions to compel timely after filing problems.
GateGuard, Inc.’s four motions to compel, and the parties or nonparties involved in the subpoenas, were affected by the order treating the motions as timely filed.
What happened
GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. involved four motions to compel related to subpoenas. GateGuard’s lawyer said technical problems with his home-office network and court-login credentials caused three motions to be filed shortly after the discovery deadline, including one at 12:27 a.m.
GateGuard asked the court to excuse the delay, extend the discovery deadline, and treat the motions as timely. Its lawyer said the delay was slight, the motions were prepared for timely filing, he acted in good faith, and no party or nonparty would be harmed.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ruled that the four motions to compel were deemed timely filed. She also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 151.
The detailed version
- GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09321
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
GateGuard’s newly appearing lawyer asked the court to excuse a slight delay in filing four motions to compel concerning four outstanding subpoenas. The lawyer stated that technical problems with his home-office network, followed by login and password-reset problems, prevented timely filing of three of the motions. The last motion was filed at 12:27 a.m. The request relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the delay resulted from excusable neglect.
Request
GateGuard argued that the delay should be excused because the motions were prepared for timely filing, the problems were beyond counsel’s control, counsel acted in good faith, and the delay caused no prejudice to any party or nonparty. The letter requested that the discovery deadline be extended and that the four motions be treated as timely filed.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that the four motions to compel at ECF Nos. 141–43 and 145 were deemed timely filed. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 151. The order did not decide the underlying subpoena or motion-to-compel issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.