HUGH LAWSON, District Judge
Plaintiff's counsel, Nathan Wade, has filed an untimely Response (Doc. 61) to Defendant Hancock County School Board's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 55). The School Board filed its Motion for Attorney Fees on November 26, 2008. Plaintiff's Response was due twenty (20) days after service of the School Board's Motion. M.D. Ga. LR 7.2. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), December 16, 2008, is twenty days from November 26, 2008. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), three days are added to this date, thus making Plaintiff's Response due on December 19, 2008. Plaintiff did not file a Response before this date, and he did not request an extension of time to respond. On December 29, 2008, the School Board filed its Reply (Doc. 60), in which it noted that Plaintiff failed to file a Response. On that same day, after the School Board filed its Reply, Plaintiff filed a Response.
This is not the first time that Wade has filed an untimely Response in this case. On August 28, 2008, the School Board filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31). Plaintiff's Response to that Motion was due by September 22, 2008. As of October 31, 2008, Plaintiff had not filed a Response or requested an extension of time. Thus, the Court held a telephone conference on October 31st to address Plaintiff's failure to respond and to determine whether Plaintiff opposed the granting of the School Board's Motion to Dismiss. During that conference Wade stated that he wanted to file a Response, but that he had not done so because he was busy running for a superior court judgeship in Cobb County. After the Court chastised Wade for his failure to act in the best interests of his client, the Court gave Wade until November 5, 2008, to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Wade complied with that deadline by filing a Response (Doc. 41) on November 3, 2008.
The Court is deeply troubled by the manner in which attorney Wade has conducted himself in this case. This is the second time that he has not timely responded to a motion. If the Court had not contacted Wade about his failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, he would not have responded at all. Likewise, Wade only responded to the Motion for Attorney Fees after the School Board filed a Reply that pointed out Plaintiff's failure to respond. Based on Wade's course of conduct in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to strike his Response to the School Board's Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court will issue an order on the Motion for Attorney Fees at a later date.
Wade's failure to comply with deadlines has also been the subject of a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Doc. 21) that was filed by Defendant Donald Strother. Though that Motion is still pending, Strother alleges in that Motion that Wade did not timely respond to discovery requests, and that when he did respond, his responses were inadequate. Based on Wade's pattern of behavior in this case, the Court has not reason to doubt Strother's contentions.
SO ORDERED