Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-01423/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-01423-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mi Familia Vota, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Katie Hobbs, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-21-01423-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

The parties are familiar with the relevant background. On August 31, 2023, the 

Court held a hearing on a discovery dispute and ordered Plaintiffs to file a motion to 

compel by September 8, 2023. (Doc. 249.) The Court ordered Non-Party Republican 

Party of Arizona to submit a response by September 18, 2023, and set a September 22, 

2023 deadline for Plaintiffs’ reply. (Id.)

On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 253.)

Non-Party Republican Party of Arizona did not file a response by the courtordered deadline.

On September 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a “reply,” which the Court construes as a 

motion for summary disposition. (Doc. 254.)

Later that day, Non-Party Republican Party of Arizona filed a motion to extend 

their response deadline (Doc. 255) and a response to the motion to compel (Doc. 256). 

The motion to extend explains that counsel’s docketing paralegal had made “an 

inadvertent error” and had “docketed the response due date off the date Plaintiffs filed 

Case 2:21-cv-01423-DWL Document 257 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their Motion to Compel,” and that this calendaring error caused the missed deadline. 

(Doc. 255 at 2.)

Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen an 

act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 

the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because 

of excusable neglect.” Courts assessing whether neglect is “excusable” must consider 

four factors: “[1] the danger of prejudice to the [non-moving party], [2] the length of the 

delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, 

including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the 

movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 

507 U.S. 380, 365 (1993).

Here, the delay is minimal (four days) and there is little to no danger of prejudice 

to Defendants. The Ninth Circuit has held that calendaring errors can constitute 

excusable neglect. Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]here 

other factors counsel relief, a calendaring mistake and related failure to catch that mistake 

is no bar to [relief under the Pioneer test].”). There is no evidence of bad faith. The 

reason for the delay weighs weakly against granting the motion, but the other factors 

weigh strongly in favor of granting it. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to grant 

the motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Non-Party Republican Party of Arizona’s motion to extend 

deadline (Doc. 255) is granted and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition (Doc. 254) 

is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their 

motion to compel by September 28, 2023.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2023.

Case 2:21-cv-01423-DWL Document 257 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 2