Spam Filter No Excuse for Late Filing

Seeking leave to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from summary judgment, an Arkansas attorney justified his lateness by saying he had not received notice of the order until about six weeks after the order, when opposing counsel sent him an email message asking if he had decided not to appeal. However, attorneys representing two parties on the other side testified that they had sent him email messages on the date of the order and the day after. Despite the attorney's speculation that he might have missed those messages because of a spam filter, the court denied his motion for permission to file late:

The record indicates that emails were sent to appellant's counsel by both attorneys Waddell and Watts within days of the entry of the orders that gave notice that the orders had been entered. Even if we could say that appellant's counsel received neither email, we could not conclude that counsel acted with due diligence in keeping up with the status of the case. Appellant's counsel was aware that two orders had been submitted to the court as of February 21, yet for over a month, counsel neglected to ascertain whether the court had entered the orders. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the extension motion.

Moody v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.ca05-910, No. CA 05-910 (Ark. Ct. App. March 8, 2006) (unpublished). Here is an article from BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law, June 21, 2006. (This source is limited to subscribers.)

Filed in: cases, spam, technology, appeals