United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BLAKE WATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES et al., 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00080

Judge Mazzant

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Opposed Motion to (1) Extend Deadline to 

Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Stay Defendants’ Deadline to 

Answer or Otherwise Respond (Dkt. #30). Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court 

finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #6) on January 31, 2023—the same 

day that he filed his Complaint (Dkt. #1). On February 9, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion 

requesting a deadline of March 31, 2023, for Defendants to respond to the motion and a deadline 

of April 7, 2023, for Plaintiff to reply (See Dkt. #17). On March 8, 2023, the Court granted the joint 

motion (Dkt. #28). On March 23, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposed Motion to (1) Extend 

Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Stay Defendants’ 

Deadline to Answer or Otherwise Respond (Dkt. #30). On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his 

Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Opposed Motion to (1) Extend Deadline to Respond to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Stay Defendants’ Deadline to Answer or 

Otherwise Respond (Dkt. #31).

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 63 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1094
2

Defendants request a 30-day extension of their deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s summary 

judgment motion (Dkt. #30 at p. 4). Defendants further request a stay of their obligation to answer 

or otherwise respond to the Complaint until after the Court addresses the parties’ summary 

judgment submissions (Dkt. #30 at p. 5).

Under Rule 6(b)(1)(A), the Court has discretion to extend a deadline to file if there is good 

cause and the request is made before the original time or its extension expires. FED. R. CIV. P.

6(b)(1)(A). Here, Defendants made their request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment before the deadline to respond expired. Given the procedural 

posture of this case, the Court finds there is good cause to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond. 

Therefore, Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is June 

17, 2024.

Additionally, the Court finds that a stay of Defendants’ answer deadline will “promote 

efficient and economical use of judicial, counsel, and litigant resources.” MRP Properties, LLC v. 

United States, No. 17-CV-11174, 2017 WL 11518355, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2017) (citing Kerotest 

Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)) (extending answer deadline pending 

resolution of motion to dismiss or sever plaintiffs). Plaintiff argues that “an answer can help 

crystallize a dispute by revealing what portions of a Complaint are undisputed” (Dkt. #31 at p. 7). 

However, Plaintiff has opted to skip this step of clarification and instead filed a motion for summary 

judgment before any answer was filed. Now it is possible that this case is resolved on summary 

judgment, which would make any answer or other response to Plaintiff’s Complaint wholly 

unnecessary. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to stay Defendants’ obligation to answer or 

otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint until theCourtresolvesthe parties’ summary judgment 

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 63 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1095
3

submissions. If necessary, the Court shall set Defendants’ answer deadline in its order regarding 

summary judgment.

It is ORDERED that Defendants’ Opposed Motion to (1) Extend Deadline to Respond to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Stay Defendants’ Deadline to Answer or 

Otherwise Respond (Dkt. #30) is GRANTED.

Specifically, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment is June 17, 2024. Any reply or sur-reply shall be filed in compliance with 

the deadlines set forth in this Court’s Local Rules.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ obligation to answer or otherwise respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #1) is stayed pending the Court’s resolution of the parties’ summary 

judgment submissions, as necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 63 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1096