How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask TJ, Esq. Your Own Question
TJ, Esq.
TJ, Esq., Attorney
Category: Personal Injury Law
Satisfied Customers: 12405
Experience:  JD, MBA
Type Your Personal Injury Law Question Here...
TJ, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, I need to use the concept of

This answer was rated:

in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, I need to use the concept of "excusable neglect" as it applies to an extension of time to amend my complaint (deadline was set for May) and a few other discovery deadlines that were missed. My question is, which FRCP applies? I have seen excusable neglect applied to different areas, usually having to do with judgments. There has been no judgment here, I am using it in a Reply to an attorney who is arguing against my motion to extend time for those discovery deadlines. thank you
Hello and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to assist you.

Rule 60 deals with excusable neglect. It states in part:

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

As you can see, it's not limited to just a final judgment. The discovery deadline would be an order.

Courts have ruled:

The factors a court can consider include: the danger of prejudice to the other party, the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. The most important factor in this test is the reason for the delay; the movant must provide a satisfactory explanation. Graphic Commc'ns Int'l Union v. Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., 270 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2001); EnvisioNet Computer Servs., Inc. v. ECS Funding LLC, 288 B.R. 163, 166 (D. Me. 2002).

Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you need clarification, as I am happy to continue helping you until you are satisfied. Also, your positive feedback is much appreciated. Thank you for using our service!

If you would like to direct additional legal questions to me in the future, then please type "To VAMD" in the subject line of your question.
TJ, Esq. and 4 other Personal Injury Law Specialists are ready to help you