United States District Court, D. Maine
DAVID J. WIDI, JR., Plaintiff,
PAUL MCNEIL, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED  ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF SERVICE
A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 26, 2016, David J. Widi, Jr. filed a motion to strike
or for order of service and enlargement of time to object.
Mot. to Strike or for Order of Serv. and
Enlargement of Time to Obj. (ECF No. 381)
(Pl.'s Mot.). Mr. Widi's motion relates back
to an order that the Court issued on August 16, 2016 on his
Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act claims. Summ.
J. Order on Count XVIII (ECF No. 360). In its order, the
Court granted summary judgment for all but eight listed
documents, and it ordered the Executive Office of the United
States Attorneys (EOUSA) either to file a supplemental
Vaughn index or to release the requested
documents within thirty days of August 16, 2016, the date of
the order. Order at 72-73.
September 15, 2016, the EOUSA filed a renewed motion for
summary judgment and a statement of facts. EOUSA's
Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. on Count XVIII (ECF No. 366)
(EOUSA's Renewed Mot.); Supp. Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 367) (DSSMF). On
October 11, 2016, David J. Widi, Jr. filed a motion for
reconsideration of the summary judgment order and an
objection to the EOUSA's renewed motion for summary
judgment. Mot. for Recons. of Summ. J. Order and Obj. to
EOUSA's Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. on Count XVIII
(ECF No. 370, 371) (Pl.'s Mot. for Recons.;
Pl.'s Opp'n to EOUSA's Renewed Mot.). On
October 22, 2016, the EOUSA filed a reply to Mr. Widi's
opposition to its renewed motion for summary judgment.
EOUSA's Reply Br. in Support of its Renewed Mot. for
Summ. J. on Count XVIII (ECF No. 375). In EOUSA's
reply, it noted that it was filing a reply only to Mr.
Widi's opposition and that it and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) would file an opposition to Mr.
Widi's motion for reconsideration by November 1, 2016.
Id. at 1, n.1.
October 26, 2016, EOUSA and ATF filed a motion to extend the
time for the filing of its opposition to Mr. Widi's
motion for reconsideration by three days from Tuesday,
November 1, 2016 to Friday, November 4, 2016 as well as a
motion to exceed the page limits for non-dispositive motions
under Local Rule 7(e). Mot. for Leave to File Br. in
Excess of Ten Pages and Extend Deadline for Resp. to Mot. to
Recons. (ECF No. 376). On October 26, 2016, the Court
granted the motions. Order (ECF No. 377). EOUSA and
ATF actually filed their opposition on November 3, 2016, two
days after the original due date. ATF's and
EOUSA's Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. of Summ.
J. Order on Count XVIII (ECF No. 378).
November 8, 2016, Mr. Widi filed his motion to strike, for
order of service, and for enlargement. Pl.'s
Mot. at 1-2. In his motion, Mr. Widi voiced three
complaints: (1) he had never received the ATF/EOUSA's
motion to extend and motion for leave to file overlong brief;
(2) the Court granted the motion without giving Mr. Widi the
opportunity to object; and (3) he should receive additional
time to file an objection to the ATF/EOUSA's motion to
extend and for leave to file overlong brief. Id.
answer to Mr. Widi's first complaint was revealed in the
ATF/EOUSA's response. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s
Mot. to Strike or for Order of Serv. and Enlargement of Time
to Obj. (ECF No. 382). The ATF/EOUSA discovered that
their motion for leave to file overlong brief and to extend
deadlines was inadvertently not mailed to the Plaintiff due
to a clerical error. Id. at 1. ATF/EOUSA represented
that they mailed the motions to Mr. Widi on November 10,
2016. Id. at 2. Mr. Widi's request for an order
of service is moot, because service had now been made.
on the Court's acting on the motion to enlarge before Mr.
Widi had an opportunity to object, the Court observes that
when a party, including Mr. Widi, files a motion for a short
extension, here only three days, the Court typically acts on
the motion before the time for a response has elapsed. There
are a number of reasons for the Court's action. The first
is purely practical. The time for Mr. Widi to have objected
to the motion for extension would have been November 16,
2016, nearly three weeks after the motion for extension was
filed and nearly two weeks after the requested extension
date. If the Court had waited for Mr. Widi to respond, the
Defendants would not have known whether their motion had been
granted until well after the motion was due. Without action
on the motion for extension, the party filing the response
would face a dilemma: file a hurried response on the original
due date or file a more complete response on the later date
and run the risk that the Court will not grant the motion for
the extension. Where only a modest extension has been
requested, it makes practical sense for the Court to act
quickly to relieve the filing party of this dilemma.
given the much-delayed and complicated nature of this
litigation, the Court cannot imagine rejecting any
party's request for a three-day extension of a filing
date. In other words, even presuming Mr. Widi's objection
to the extension, the Court would still have granted the
Mr. Widi himself has been the repeated beneficiary of the
Court's quick action on motions for extension. In fact,
on November 17, 2016, Mr. Widi moved for an extension from
November 17, 2016 to November 30, 2016 to file a reply to
ATF/EOUSA's response to his motion for reconsideration.
Mot. to Enlarge Time to File Reply to ATF's and
EOUSA's Opp'n to Mot. for Recons. of the Summ. J.
Order on Count XVIII (ECF No. 383). ATF/EOUSA's
opposition to Mr. Widi's November 17, 2016 extension
motion would have been due on December 8, 2016, but the Court
granted Mr. Widi's motion on November 21, 2016 before
receiving ATF/EOUSA's response. Order (ECF No.
385). If the Court were to impose the practice that Mr. Widi
now urges-delaying ruling on a modest motion for extension
until the response and demanding good cause for any
extension-Mr. Widi would come to regret the change in
judicial practice since as a prisoner, he has had a much more
difficult time meeting original deadlines than the
summary, the Court DENIES David J. Widi's motion to
strike and motion for enlargement of time to object and
DISMISSES as moot his motion for order of service (ECF No.
 This Amended Order corrects a
typographical error on page 3 of the Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 389) dated November
29, 2016. On page 3 of the Order, third paragraph, it
currently reads “the Court typically acts on the motion
before the time for a response is received.” It should
read “the Court ...