## Facts

- Minerva Vélez worked for a company owned by Ismael Nieves‑Valle and later became romantically involved with him.
- After Vélez ended the relationship, she alleged that Nieves sexually harassed her and that she was discharged in March 2000.
- Vélez sued Awning Windows, Inc. and Nieves’s estate in federal court, asserting Title VII claims and Puerto Rico anti-discrimination claims.
- Throughout the litigation, defendants repeatedly missed deadlines, including deadlines to respond to filings and to comply with court scheduling orders, despite extensions and warnings.
- Vélez moved for partial summary judgment on liability; defendants filed an opposition after the court-imposed deadline.
- The district court disregarded the untimely opposition, treated Vélez’s factual proffer as uncontroverted, and granted partial summary judgment on liability.
- A jury trial on damages resulted in an award of nearly $750,000.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the enforcement of deadlines and the entry of summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enforcing its scheduling orders, including refusing to consider defendants’ untimely opposition and denying related requests for additional time.
2. Whether granting partial summary judgment on liability was improper because defendants claimed they needed more time and later filed an opposition.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects.
- The district court acted within its discretion in enforcing deadlines and disregarding the late-filed opposition to the partial summary-judgment motion.
- The district court permissibly treated Vélez’s properly supported factual submission as admitted and granted partial summary judgment on liability.
- Defendants’ request for more time did not satisfy the requirements for a Rule 56(f) continuance.
- No error or prejudice warranting reversal was shown.

## Legal Principles

- District courts have broad discretion to manage cases through scheduling orders and to impose consequences for noncompliance.
- A court may disregard an untimely summary-judgment opposition and treat the movant’s properly supported factual assertions as uncontroverted under applicable local and scheduling rules.
- A request to defer summary judgment under Rule 56(f) (now Rule 56(d)) must be timely and must identify specific discoverable facts, explain why they are unavailable, and show how they would affect the summary-judgment analysis.
- Repeated failure to comply with court-imposed deadlines, after extensions and warnings, can justify adverse procedural rulings, including resolution of liability based on an unopposed record.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld strict enforcement of case-management deadlines, holding that defendants’ repeated noncompliance allowed the district court to disregard a late summary-judgment opposition and to grant partial summary judgment on liability where no adequate Rule 56(f) showing justified additional time.


Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004)