Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Defendants Derek W. Kirkwood, James S. Hulse, Jerry Garner, the Corinth Police Department, and the City of Corinth sought additional time to answer or otherwise respond to Ronald B. Palmer and Sherry L. Palmer’s complaint. The defendants reported that they were served on December 9, 2020, making their responsive pleadings due December 30, 2020.
In an amended, unopposed motion, the defendants requested a 30-day extension because of the upcoming holidays, difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and counsel’s obligations in other cases, including a matter pending before the Fifth Circuit. They also represented that the Palmers did not oppose the request.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the amended motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A). Because the defendants requested the extension before the existing deadline expired, they needed to demonstrate good cause, not excusable neglect.
The court found good cause based on the reasons presented and extended the deadline for an answer or other responsive pleading to January 29, 2021. It denied the defendants’ original extension motion as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A timely request to extend a deadline under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) requires a showing of good cause.
- The court found that the holidays, pandemic-related difficulties, and counsel’s competing case obligations supported a 30-day extension.
- The defendants’ response deadline was moved from December 30, 2020, to January 29, 2021.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the more flexible standard governing extension requests made before a deadline expires. Unlike a late request, a timely motion does not require the moving party to establish excusable neglect.
It also shows that practical scheduling constraints may establish good cause, particularly when the requested extension is limited and the opposing parties do not object.