Opinion ID: 2708354
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duffy’s Opportunity to Respond

Text: While Steele and Hansmeier submitted timely memoran‐ da in opposition to the ISPs’ motions, Duffy did not. He as‐ serts that he was not given an opportunity to respond be‐ cause the district court ruled on the motions before the time to respond expired under the court’s local rules. This argu‐ ment is frivolous. Duffy does not cite any local rule for this point, and had he taken the time to look at the rules, he quickly would have realized that there was time to respond. The ISPs electronically filed their motions on November 8, 2013. The local rules allow 17 days for any response to elec‐ tronically filed motions. See SDIL‐LR 7.1(g); SDIL‐LR 5.1(c). The rules provide that “[f]ailure to file a timely response to a motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an ad‐ mission of the merits of the motion.” SDIL‐LR 7.1(g). Duffy had until November 25, 2013, to submit his response, but he did not file anything. The district court granted the ISPs’ mo‐ tion on November 27, 2013. Duffy had an opportunity to re‐ spond; he simply chose not to exercise it. 12 Nos. 13‐3801 & 14‐1682