Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00893-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARI HARPER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 06-893 AWI DLB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE REQUEST FOR LATE

FILING OF REPLY

(Doc. No. 47)

Bench trial in this matter is set for April 7, 2008. By stipulation, the parties agreed that

reply trial briefs would be filed by February 28, 2008. Despite the stipulation, Defendant did not

file its reply until February 29, 2008. Plaintiff filed her reply, along with an ex parte request to

allow the late filing, on March 4, 2008. 

Defendant’s reason for late filing was that, at 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2008, they could

not log onto the Court’s ECF system. Defendant did not comply with the Local Rules dealing

with unannounced technical failures and did not seek an order allowing the late filing. See Local

Rule 5-134(c). Defendant, however, did e-mail a copy of its reply to the Court at 5:42 p.m. on

February 28, 2008, which was appreciated. 

Plaintiff’s reason for being late by an entire week was that the Plaintiff’s counsel’s law

Case 1:06-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 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 2

firm was in the process of moving during the last week of February. What Plaintiff’s counsel

conspicuously does not explain is what he or the firm was doing from December 20, 2007, the

date of the first stipulation that changed the trial date and set a reply date, to the last week of

February 2008. 

Nevertheless, the bench trial in this matter is set for April 7, 2008, the Court believes that

it has sufficient time to review the late filed materials. Therefore, the Court will consider both

parties’ late filed replies. However, the Court’s orders are to be obeyed and future submissions

(if any) are to be timely filed, otherwise they are subject to being struck. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s ex parte request to allow late

filing is GRANTED and the Court will consider both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s late filed

replies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2