govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_24-cv-02567-5

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
LA
URA GREEN, * 
P
laintiff, * 
v
. * Civil Action No. RDB-24-2567 
i
MENTOR, INC., * 
D
efendant. * 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 
ME
MORANDUM ORDER 
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Laura Green’s Motion for One-Week Extension 
of Time to File a R esponse to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment ( “Motion to 
Extend”), filed in the evening of June 11, 2026, just one day before the filing deadline of June 
12, 2026. (ECF No. 78.) Defendant iMentor filed a Response this morning, June 12, 2026. 
(ECF No. 79.) The Court has reviewed t he parties’ submissions. No hearing is necessary. See 
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). As explained below, Ms. Green’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 
78) i
s DENIED.
Local Rule 105.2(a) of this Court states that a party has fourteen days to file a response 
to any motion by an opposing party. Loc. R. 105.2(a) (D. Md. 2025). Pursuant to Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 6(b), a trial court may extend a filing deadline if the moving party 
demonstrates “good cause” to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). District courts have broad discretion 
to manage discovery and schedules. United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 
305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002). 

2 
In this case, iMentor filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 29, 2026 . (ECF 
No. 76.) Under Local Rule 105.2(a), Ms. Green’s deadline to file a response to that Motion is 
today, June 12, 2026. Last night, on the eve of her deadline, she filed the pending Motion to 
Extend. (ECF No. 78.) She seeks a one-week extension to June 19, 2026. (Id.) She claims that 
good cause exists because the Motion for Summary Judgm ent is dispositive and she requires 
“a brief extension to complete her response, finalize record citations, and ensure that the issues 
are fully and accurately presented to the Court.” (Id. at 2.) She also alleges that she has had to 
schedule multiple depositions since May 29, 2026. (Id.) To be clear, those depositions were for 
other cases, not this one. 
There is no good cause to extend the deadline in this case. As iMentor notes in its 
Response (ECF No. 79), United States Magistrate Judge Chelsea Crawford discussed the 
deadlines for filing summary judgment motions in this case, as well as any responses thereto, 
with both parties during her hearing in this case of April 27, 2026. (Id. at 2.) Ms. Green’s 
argument to extend , that good cause is created by the dispositive nature of a summary 
judgment motion, is unavailing. The Local Rules of this Court permit fourteen days to file a 
response in all cases and for all motions. This case, a one-count claim of race discrimination 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not present unique circumstances rendering the ordinary 
fourteen-day deadline unrealistic or unattai nable. Parties consistently respond to dispositive 
motions within the fourteen- day deadline even despite the busy caseloads of their attorneys. 
Ms. Green’s motion was filed at the last minute, just one day before the response deadline. 
She has not demonstrated good cause simply by stating that she asked for an extension before 
time ran out. 

3 
Finally, the Court notes that Ms. Green has previously sought m ultiple deadline 
extensions and other accommodations from this Court on the cusp of important deadlines. 
For example, on March 11, 2026, with less than a month until the close of disc overy, Ms. 
Green sought (ECF No. 46) and was granted a two-week extension on all deadlines, 
particularly an extension on the discovery deadline from April 8, 2026, to April 22, 2026. See 
(ECF No. 47 (this Court’s Paperless Order granting the extension)). Then , just twelve days 
later on March 23, 2026, she filed a second motion to extend time to complete discovery, seeking 
an additional sixty days beyond the two weeks already granted. (ECF No. 51.) This Court 
denied that motion by Memorandum Order on March 31, 2026 , finding that good cause did 
not exist to extend the deadlines any further. (ECF No. 56.) As a final example, on the same 
day that she filed her second motion to extend time for discovery, March 23, 2026, Ms. Green 
filed a motion to compel the deposition of one of iMentor’s former employees, Derek Smith, 
on March 2 3, 2026. See (ECF No. 52 ( the Motion) ); see also (ECF No. 58 (this Court’ s 
Memorandum Order denying that Motion)). This motion to compel came with less than one 
month until the extended April 22, 2026, discovery deadline and after months of discovery as 
to the sole remaining count in this case, a claim of race discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
§1981. (ECF No. 58.) This Court denied that motion, as well. The pending Motion to Extend 
(ECF No. 78) follows the recent patten. No good cause has been shown to extend this 
ordinary filing deadline any further. 

4 
In sum, Ms. Green has not met her burden of demonstrating good cause to extend this 
Court’s routine response deadline of fourteen days. Her Motion to Extend (ECF No. 78) is 
therefore DENIED. It is SO ORDERED this 12th day of June 2026. 
Ri
chard D. Bennett 
United States Senior District Judge 
/s/

Passage view · GavelSight