As defense lawyers, we have dealt many a time with plaintiffs’ attorneys who get away with just about everything. Failing to appear for hearings. Failing to oppose motions. Ignoring court orders. Ignoring discovery requests.

When unjustified, such acts of neglect should not be excused, but they often are. Courts are predisposed to decide cases on the merits, and loathe to force plaintiffs to bear the consequences of the actions (or inactions) of poorly-chosen legal counsel. Thus, more frequently than you might expect, courts will overlook blown deadlines and court-imposed requirements for those on the other side of the “v.”

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides guidance for discerning between errors that are justifiable and those that are not, but we’ve always found it a bit cryptic:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

You do not wind up in Rule 60 motion territory without some kind of mistake or neglect, or inadvertence or surprise. The ultimate question is whether the goof-up is one that can be justified or excused, and that is where we think Rule 60 could do with a little more detail.
Our griping aside, some attorney errors are obvious even under the vague Rule 60(b)(1) test. Which brings us to Donate v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197226, 2025 WL 2829196 (Oct. 6, 2025 E.D. La.).

Donate came to our attention because it is a medical device (knee replacement) product liability action. After the defendant removed the case to federal court, the plaintiff’s lawyer registered with the federal court ECF system.

And that apparently was about the last thing he did, until five months after the court entered judgment against the plaintiff for failing to oppose a motion to dismiss and failing to respond to an order to show cause about said failure to oppose the motion to dismiss.

Once plaintiff’s counsel finally came to, he moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(a)(1), arguing excusable neglect in that his email address had changed, he failed to update it in the ECF system, and thus he had not received any filings or orders after the removal.

The court—the venerable Judge Eldon Fallon, not one who is quick to penalize plaintiffs for their attorneys’ minor mistakes—rejected plaintiff’s arguments, emphasizing that local rules require attorneys to maintain current contact information in the electronic filing system. Indeed, the rules also require attorneys to diligently monitor the status of their cases, and plaintiff’s counsel did not check the docket or contact the court’s clerk either.

Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s gloss on Rule 60(b)(1) from Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2019), Judge Fallon agreed that this conduct amounted to gross carelessness, and counsel’s ignorance of his obligations under court rules did not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(1) either.

The court also addressed the appropriateness of dismissal with prejudice, noting that lesser sanctions would have been futile under the circumstances. It had attempted to reengage plaintiff’s counsel through the show cause order, but counsel’s failure to update his contact information rendered such efforts ineffective.

It seems like it should not be necessary to say this, but apparently it is: Lawyers need to keep their addresses updated with the court, and keep an eye on their cases, particularly if things have unexpectedly gone silent.