Mullins v. Department of Labor et al, No. 3:2008cv01422 - Document 149 (D.P.R. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part re 148 MOTION for Reconsideration re 147 Opinion and Order, filed by Betty Ann Mullins Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 4/5/2011.(nydi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mullins v. Department of Labor et al 1 Doc. 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 BETTY ANN MULLINS, 5 6 Plaintiff 7 v. 8 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OF PUERTO RICO, et al., 9 10 CIVIL 08-1422 (JA) Defendants 11 12 13 14 ORDER This matter is before the court on motion for reconsideration of my opinion 15 16 and order of March 28, 2011 holding plaintiff in contempt for violating my 17 confidentiality order of September 28, 2010. (Docket No. 148.) For the reasons 18 set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. “‘[D]istrict 19 courts enjoy broad latitude’ in adopting and administering . . . local rules.” Nepsk, 20 21 Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Air Line Pilots 22 Ass’n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 1994)); (citing 23 Ramsdell v. Bowles, 64 F.3d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1995)); see Moron-Barrads v. Dep’t of 24 Educ. of the Com. of P.R., 488 F.3d 472, 478 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting McIntosh 25 26 v. Antonino, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995)). “In exercising that discretion, 27 district courts may, where appropriate, ‘demand adherence to specific mandates 28 contained in the rules.’” Nepsk, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d at 6 (quoting Dockets.Justia.com 1 CIVIL NO. 08-1422 (JA) 2 2 3 Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d at 224). This allows 4 5 the courts to maintain control of their dockets and to administer justice efficiently 6 and quickly. See, e.g., Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46 7 (1st Cir. 2002) (“To manage a crowded calendar efficiently and effectively, a trial 8 court must take an active role in case management.”). Under the local rules of 9 10 the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, “[u]nless within 11 fourteen (14) days after the service of a motion the opposing party files a written 12 objection to the motion, incorporating a memorandum of law, the opposing party 13 shall be deemed to have waived objection.” Local Rules of the U.S. Dist. Court for 14 15 the Dist. of P.R. Rule 7(b). 16 The First Circuit has “made it clear that district courts may punish . . . 17 dereliction in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the preclusion of 18 untimely motions . . . . ” Zegarra v. D’Nieto Uniforms, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 2d 212, 19 20 216 (D.P.R. 2009) (quoting Rosario-Díaz v. González, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 21 1998)). 22 contempt is denied. The time to reply in opposition has passed. 23 24 Plaintiff’s request to reply in opposition to the motion seeking her “The fact that an attorney has other fish to fry is not an acceptable reason for disregarding a court order.” Chamorro v. Puerto Rican Cars, Inc., 304 F.3d 1, 25 26 27 28 5 (1st Cir. 2002); Monge v. Cortés, 413 F. Supp. 2d 42, 50 (D.P.R. 2006). The First Circuit has consistently refused to accept a busy attorney’s excuses as a valid 1 CIVIL NO. 08-1422 (JA) 3 2 3 reason for failing to oppose a motion. See Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of 4 5 Westfield, 296 F.3d at 47 n.3; Méndez v. Banco Popular de P.R., 900 F.2d 4, 8 6 (1st Cir. 1990); Piñero Schroeder v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 574 F.2d 1117, 1118 7 (1st Cir. 1978) (per curiam). Analogously, the same reasoning validly applies to 8 ignoring our local rules. 9 10 Nevertheless, upon further reflection, the terms of the contempt order are 11 modified. Plaintiff is fined $500, and is to post an additional “contempt bond” in 12 the amount of $1,500 at the Office of the Clerk, 150 Carlos Chardón Avenue, 13 Room 150, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, by April 7, 2011, at 3:00 P.M. See, e.g., 14 15 Imageware, Inc. v. U.S. West Commc’ns, 219 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2000). 16 Plaintiff is forewarned that any future infinitesimal violation of my confidentiality 17 order will result in an appropriate sanction, considering plaintiff having received 18 this warning and the warning of March 28, 2011. (Docket No. 147.) The bond will 19 20 21 be returned to plaintiff upon judgment being entered, assuming no further violations of the confidentiality order. 22 SO ORDERED. 23 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5th day of April, 2011. 24 25 26 27 28 S/ JUSTO ARENAS Chief United States Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
