Opinion ID: 201762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Summary Judgment Record

Text: 6 Under the local rules of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, [u]nless within ten (10) days after the service of a motion the opposing party files written objection thereto, incorporating a memorandum of law, the opposing party shall be deemed to have waived objection. D.P.R. R. 7(b) (renumbered as Rule 7.1(b), effective April 5, 2004). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) confers discretion on a court to grant an extension of time after the expiration of a filing deadline for excusable neglect. In the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion, . . . we will not interfere with a district court's reasoned refusal to grant incremental enlargements of time. Mendez v. Banco Popular de P.R., 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990). No such abuse occurred here. 7 The court granted Cordero's first request for an extension of time until February 25, 2004. On March 4, 2004, Cordero requested an additional extension of time until March 8, 2004. 2 By March 18, 2004, when Cordero still had not filed an opposition, the court issued an order declaring his motion of March 4, 2004 moot and Island Finance's motion for summary judgment unopposed. On March 30, 2004, Cordero filed a third motion for an extension of time until April 20, 2004, attaching a hospital discharge record and explaining that his counsel had been hospitalized from March 5 through March 10, 2004 with a pulmonary infection and other conditions, after which counsel was instructed to rest for 20 days. 8 Island Finance filed an opposition to Cordero's motion the next day, arguing, inter alia, that Cordero's counsel had been well enough to take a deposition on March 18, 2004, and therefore could have filed his third motion for an extension before March 30, 2004. The court denied Cordero's motion on April 2, 2004, stating: This Court notes that plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with this Court's deadlines, and failed to notify this court in a timely manner of any circumstances that could support an extension of time. 9 While we do not fault counsel for choosing to risk his own health on his client's behalf by taking a deposition, the court could reasonably have expected him to make the small additional effort of contemporaneously filing a motion for an extension of the deadline for responding to the pending motions. Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordero's third motion for an extension of time to file an opposition. As a consequence, the court properly treated Island Finance's motion as unopposed and its statement of facts admitted. See Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2003) (This court has held repeatedly that the district court in Puerto Rico is justified in holding one party's submitted uncontested facts to be admitted when the other party fails to file oppositions in compliance with local rules.); D.P.R. R. 56(e) (Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted.) (proposed rule effective September 29, 2003, adopted as final rule effective April 5, 2004). 10 Nor did the court abuse its discretion by excluding from consideration Cordero's Spanish-language exhibits. It is well settled that federal litigation in Puerto Rico [must] be conducted in English. González-De-Blasini v. Family Dep't, 377 F.3d 81, 88 (1st Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Pena-Crespo v. Puerto Rico, 408 F.3d 10, 14 (1st Cir.2005) (not an abuse of discretion for the district court to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony where the plaintiff failed to provide an English translation of expert's report and resume, and made no attempt to remedy the omission before the court); see also 48 U.S.C. § 864; D.P.R. R. 10(b) (All documents not in the English language which are presented to or filed in this Court, whether as evidence or otherwise, shall be accompanied at the time of presentation or filing by an English translation thereof, unless the Court shall otherwise order.) (approved as final rule effective April 5, 2004).