Or a bris, or a marriage, or possibly even the season finale of "Homeland":
Due to the procedural importance of the response(s) at issue, denying Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended seems Draconian in this complex matter. However, a reasonable person, let alone an officer of the court, must understand why it troubles me to grant any further extension to the Defendants. It should go without saying, but in this instance requires stating that a court-imposed deadline is an event of significance in a litigator’s life. It cannot and should not be disregarded in favor of vacation or minor hurdles. Justice Joseph Story cautioned all attorneys, “I will not say with Lord Hale, that the Law will admit of no rival ... but I will say that it is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favors, but by lavish homage.”2She's right -- if you know you need more time, why wait until the last day to seek an enlargement?
Then there's the dog-ate-my-homework feel of the explanation provided by counsel:
Counsel for Defendant Cypress states that upon return to his office following a twelve-day vacation, he learned that his Westlaw service was not operational. This explanation for failure to comply with a court order remains unclear. Defendant Cypress is represented by two distinct attorneys working from two separate offices in two separate locations. Was Westlaw down for both attorneys? Was neither attorney able to use the legal research resources of co-Defendants’ counsel with whom they made an agreement to spearhead the drafting of the response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint?Oh boy.