ANCER L. HAGGERTY, United States District Judge
Defendant seeks relief from the court's order of November 18, 2002 granting plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. For the following reasons, defendant's motion for relief is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff served defendant with a motion to amend the complaint on August 30, 2002, triggering a response deadline of September 13. Judge Frye granted defendant's first motion to extend the response deadline to October 11. Two days before defendant's response was due, defendant filed a second motion to extend, which this court denied. On October 30, 2002, based on arguments presented to the court during a telephone hearing, the court rescinded its earlier order and granted defendant leave to file a response by November 13, 2002. Defendant failed to file a timely response, and the court granted plaintiff's motion to amend.
DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from this court's order granting plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. A district court has the discretion to relieve a party from a "final judgment, order or proceeding" upon a showing of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (emphasis added). The granting of leave to amend a complaint is not a final judgment or order. Rule 60(b) is therefore an inappropriate basis for relief.
Even if Rule 60(b) applied, defense counsel's repeated failure to meet deadlines in this litigation does not constitute "excusable neglect." Defense counsel claims that he inadvertently miscalendered the correct response deadline of November 13 for November 15. Defendant's characterization of the facts is not entirely credible. If defense counsel had indeed miscalendered the response date for November 15, he should logically have filed his response on that date. Defendant filed nothing on November 15. Thus, defense counsel missed both the actual deadline and his own miscalendered deadline.
Defense counsel further contends that the late response was ready to be filed on November 18. According to defense counsel's version of events, it was only after receiving the court's email notification granting plaintiff's motion to amend on November 18 that defense counsel decided not to file a response on the same day.
Court records confirm that e-mail notification of the court's ruling was sent to defense counsel at 4:43 p.m. on November 18. The clerk's office closes at 4:30 p.m. Defense counsel's claim that he would have filed the late response on November 18 but for the court's order is not credible in light of the fact that he received notification of the order after the doors to the clerk's office closed. The current motion for relief constitutes defendant's sixth request for more time to brief various motions in this action and the fourth such request for this particular motion. The court had already granted numerous extensions and allotted defendant 75 days to file a response to a motion that normally requires a response within 14 days. Defendant filed nothing on the final deadline of November 13, notwithstanding the fact that defendant had been granted 61 extra days to respond. Although defense counsel seeks numerous extensions regarding his own briefing schedules, defendant simultaneously opposed plaintiff's motion to extend the scheduling order (doc. #220) on the ground that defendant "desires this case be tried at the earliest possible date. . . ." Coluccio declaration at 2. Defense counsel's positions are contradictory.
This court sets deadlines pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to manage cases and to achieve the efficient resolution of civil litigation. Having already granted defense counsel relief from an order regarding the same tardy response to the same motion, the court will not grant defendant relief once again.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for relief from the order granting plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (doc. #250) is denied. Defendant's answer to plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the date of this order. No request to extend this time period will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED