Utah Republican Party v. Herbert, 678 F. App'x 697

URP and the Constitution Party sued Utah over election-code amendments; district court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs and entered judgment on November 23, 2015.
Rule 54(d)(2)(B) required a motion for attorney’s fees and costs by December 7, 2015 (14 days after judgment). The Constitution Party filed timely; URP did not.
URP’s counsel, Marcus Mumford, filed three untimely Rule 6(b)(1) motions (filed Dec. 8, Dec. 8 later, and Dec. 10 at 11:58 p.m.) seeking successive short extensions to file URP’s fee motion; URP filed the fee motion on Dec. 11, four days late.
Mumford attributed delays to attendance at an out-of-state mediation, unavailability of co-counsel, and a paralegal’s hospitalization; later he added that he was involuntarily logged off CM/ECF and attached a log.
The district court denied all extension requests and a Rule 59(e) reconsideration motion, finding URP failed to show good cause (and also concluding excusable neglect was not shown); URP appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (URP)	Defendant's Argument (Utah)	Held
Whether URP showed good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) for post-deadline extensions to file a fee motion	Urged counsel’s mediation, co-counsel and paralegal unavailability, and a CM/ECF logoff justified short extensions	Argued URP delayed preparation until the deadline, had a history of missed deadlines, and provided no diligent pre-deadline efforts	Court affirmed denial: no good cause shown given last-minute preparation, lack of diligence, and counsel’s pattern of tardiness
Whether district court abused discretion denying Rule 59(e) reconsideration based on new CM/ECF logoff excuse	Argued the log record showed an involuntary logoff that excused the late filing	Argued the new excuse did not overcome absence of good cause or URP’s prior dilatory conduct	Court affirmed denial; did not accept the new CM/ECF explanation and found no abuse of discretion

Buchanan v. Sherrill, 51 F.3d 227 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of Rule 6(b)(1) extension)
Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) (Rule 6(b)(1) should be liberally construed but extensions are not a matter of right)
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (post-deadline extension permissible only for excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1))
Broitman v. Kirkland (In re Kirkland), 86 F.3d 172 (10th Cir.) (good cause requires at least as much as excusable neglect)
Gorsuch, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.) (good cause requires diligence; deadline cannot be met despite diligent efforts)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (framework for excusable neglect analysis)
Madden v. Texas, 498 U.S. 1301 (1991) (Circuit Justice order; lack of diligence defeats late-extension requests)