Even though filing deadlines control lawyers’ lives, you don’t often see a circuit court opinion on that issue. The First Circuit addressed the sticky subject this week with its decision in Jorge Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico.
When the defendant moved to extend the deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s counsel advised the court that she had scheduled a trial and a vacation based on the prior schedule and requested that any extension take her schedule into account. Thereafter, the court entered several orders that were subject to different interpretations and, in the end, the court granted the defendant’s motion for failure of the plaintiff to respond. The plaintiff appealed and won, but the First Circuit made clear that courts are not required to grant extensions and lawyers should not assume that extensions will be granted. If there is any confusion, lawyers should seek clarification from the court. Notably, one source of confusion was the docket entry for one of the orders. The opinion cites other opinions on the issue of extensions and could be helpful if you find yourself on either side of this mess. Interestingly, even though the First Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment, costs were taxed against the appellant.