UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 1/28/ 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X MEMORANDUM ENDORSED DENNIS SWEENEY, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:19-CV-07389 Plaintiff, : DEFENDANT BDO’S MOTION v. : TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BDO USA, LLP and JANET BERNIER, in her : DISMISS BDO’S SECOND individual and professional capacities, AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM : Defendants. : -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Defendant BDO USA, LLP (“BDO” or “Defendant”), by and through its attorneys, moves to strike Plaintiff’s Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss BDO’s Second Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 50.) On December 23rd, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dismiss BDO’s Second Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 40.) On December 24th, 2019, counsel for BDO filed a letter requesting clarification on the Opposition and Reply deadlines (ECF No. 43.) On December 26, 2019, the court signed an order stating “Defendant’s opposition is due no later than January 13, 2020. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, is due one week following service of Defendant’s opposition.” (ECF No. 44.) One week—or 7 calendar days following January 13, 2020 would have been January 20, 2020, which was a recognized Federal holiday. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1) made the new deadline for Plaintiff’s Reply January 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed the Reply on January 22, 2020 (ECF No 50.) It is one thing for busy lawyers to have difficulty meeting a deadline, but it is quite another thing for Plaintiff’s counsel to take it upon themselves to ignore a court-imposed deadline and file an overdue Reply whenever they want. If counsel for Sweeney were truly and should have timely brought the matter to the Court’s attention and filed a motion seeking additional time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, Judges have inherent power to manage their own proceedings. Failure to meet a court-imposed deadline is grounds to strike. See RLI Ins. Co. v. May Const. Co., Inc., 09 Civ. 7415(PKC),

at *2 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2011) (granting motion to strike for party’s failure to obey scheduling order under Rule 16(f)). A district court may deny consideration to untimely filings. See, e.g., Living Legends Ret. Ctr., Inc. y. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 04-60435-CIV,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2005) (striking plaintiffs reply as untimely where it was filed after the due date). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant requests that the Court strike Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss as untimely. Dated: January 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Kyla J. Miller Michael J. Sheehan Kyla J. Miller (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendants McDermott Will & Emery LLP 444 West Lake Street Chicago, Illinois 60606-0029 +] 312 372 2000 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Application denied. Although Plaintiffs reply was untimely, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to strike it. However, the Court reminds Defendant of its obligation to meet Court-tmposed deadlines. The Court reminds Plaintiff that failure to comply with Court orders in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. SO ORDERED. Zac . WW d.ad Dated: January 28, 2020 GREG . WOODS New York, New York United States District Judge