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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DECLARATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

MIKHAIL STEPCHUK, et al., )

) No. C06-570RSL

Plaintiffs, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General ) MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

of the United States; et al., ) DECLARATION

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to Amend Pleadings” (Dkt.

#41). Defendants seek leave of Court to include the Supplemental Declaration of Julia Harrison

(Dkt. #40) in support of their “Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt.

#35). Plaintiffs do not expressly oppose the Court’s consideration of the supplemental

declaration, but rather claim that it “still fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to

Plaintiff Rikabi’s eligibility to naturalize.” See Response at 1.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) states that when a motion for summary judgment is

filed, the “adverse party prior to the day of the hearing may serve opposing affidavits.” Under 

Rule 56(e), “[t]he court may permit affidavits to be supplemented . . . by . . . further affidavits.” 

Although defendants’ supplemental declaration was filed after the summary judgment motion’s

October 6, 2006 noting date, under Rule 6(b), “the court for cause shown may at any time in its
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DECLARATION -2-

discretion . . . upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be

done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” See also Local Rule

7(d)(2)(A) (motions for relief from a deadline). “Excusable neglect” is determined by reference

to four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of 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 moving party’s conduct

was in good faith. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, the Court finds that the Supplemental Declaration of Julia Harrison was filed after

the summary judgment motion’s noting date because of excusable neglect. First, plaintiffs are

not prejudiced by the late filing because they had an opportunity to respond and did not object to

the late filing. Second, the supplemental declaration was filed only a week after the noting date

resulting in a minimal impact on the judicial proceedings. Finally, the supplemental declaration

was filed because “new information came to light regarding the application of Plaintiff Adil

Rikabi,” which is a justifiable reason for the delay and indicates that defendants acted in good

faith in filing the belated declaration. See Motion at 2.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS “Defendants’ Motion to Amend

Pleadings” (Dkt. #41). Accordingly, the Court will consider the Supplemental Declaration of

Julia Harrison (Dkt. #40) in support of “Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Summary Judgment” (Dkt. #35). 

DATED this 30th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge