Judge Mae D’Agostino
Doroz charged TECT Utica Corp. with national origin discrimination and retaliation. Denying TECT summary judgment, district court’s Jan. 28, 2013, order directed Doroz to file an amended complaint by Feb. 27. Because Doroz did not do so, TECT sought dismissal on March 8. A March 11 letter by Doroz’s attorney sought to extend the filing deadline through March 15, 2013, on the ground that counsel’s computer had been down and files could not be accessed, that the deadline had not been entered into counsel’s electronic calendar, and that the missed deadline was the product of inadvertence. The court granted TECT dismissal, concluding that the reasons Doroz’s counsel gave for failing to abide by the Feb. 27, 2013, filing deadline did not qualify as excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Caselaw provides that law office failure rarely constitutes excusable neglect and that neither inadvertence nor preoccupied and “overworked” staff demonstrate excusable neglect. Further the excuse of computer problems had been rejected in Miller v. City of Ithaca. As the Supreme Court held in Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., clients must be “held accountable for the acts and omissions of their chosen counsel.”
