Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carrington Alan Keys v. District Attorney Jacqueline M. Carroll

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


February 17, 2012

CARRINGTON ALAN KEYS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JACQUELINE M. CARROLL, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: (judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant District Attorney's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 143). For the reasons below, the Court finds that Defendant District Attorney Jacqueline M. Carroll's brief was not untimely and will deny Plaintiff's Motion.

I. Background

On December 5, 2011, the Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Court's November 23, 2011 Order. (Doc. 123). Plaintiff's Motion contained an argument and legal citations, which the Court construes as a brief in support of his Motion. Defendant Carroll filed her response to Plaintiff's Motion and Brief on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 134). On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike Carroll's brief as untimely. (Doc. 143). This Motion is now ripe and ready for the Court's review.

II. Analysis

The Middle District's Local Rule 7.6 ("Submission of Briefs Opposing Motions") states, in relevant part, that "[a]ny party opposing any motion . . . shall file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant's brief . . . . Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion." Further, the Standing Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania provides that: "[i]n accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) . . . service by electronic means is treated the same as service by mail for the purposes of adding three (3) days to the prescribed period to respond." Standing Order 05--6, In RE: Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures, Section 4, Consequences of Electronic Filing. Taken together, when a document is filed electronically*fn1 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the period in which a party has to respond under the local rules is actually seventeen (17) days.

Plaintiff's Motion and Brief were filed electronically on December 5, 2011. Defendant Carroll filed her brief seventeen (17) days later on December 22, 2011. As this comports with the prescribed period under the Local Rules as combined with the three (3) day grace period, the Court will deem Defendant's Motion as timely and deny Plaintiff's Motion to strike.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 143). An appropriate order follows.

A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.