Last week, Judge Liman issued an opinion and order noting in a footnote that, although plaintiff had filed her opposition one day late, the court would still accept the filing. 

Initially, the defendant argued on reply that plaintiff’s opposition “should be disregarded” due to the delay. In response, the plaintiff “belatedly moved for leave to file a late opposition” and explained that counsel “had been traveling overseas, miscalendared the response date, and did not realize the response was late until this was pointed out by Defendant’s reply.”

Judge Liman ultimately agreed to grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late opposition:

Here, although clerical error is a weak reason for delay, the response was only one day late and there is no evidence of prejudice or bad faith. In addition, the time limit here is not generally regarded as one on which substantial rights turn. The time to respond to a motion is set by the Local Civil Rules, which also provide that it can be freely altered “by the court in a judge’s individual practices or in a direction in a particular case.”