casemark/extend-time-brief

Motion to Extend Time to File Brief

Drafts a procedural motion requesting additional time to file a brief in an appellate court. Establishes good cause with specific facts and strict compliance with applicable rules of appellate procedure.

Prerequisites

Gather before drafting:

• Case caption — party names exactly as in appellate record, court name, case number
• Current deadline — date from court order or rule
• Brief type — opening, answering, or reply
• Party represented — appellant or appellee
• Extension history — prior extensions sought or granted
• Good cause facts — specific, verifiable grounds (conflicts, complexity, transcript delays)
• Opposing counsel's position — consent, non-opposition, opposition, or unreachable
• Applicable rules — jurisdiction's appellate procedure rules, local rules, standing orders

Document Structure

| Section | Content | |---------|---------| | Caption | Full party names (exact appellate record format), unabbreviated court name, case number | | Title | "Motion to Extend Time to File [Brief Type]" | | Introduction | Moving party, current deadline, proposed new deadline, days requested | | Argument | Good cause with specific facts; opposing counsel's position | | Conclusion | Specific relief with exact new date | | Proposed Order | Per local rules: case caption, new deadline, signature line |

Workflow

1. Extract case identifiers, deadlines, and procedural history from materials
2. Determine extension number — courts apply heightened scrutiny to repeat requests
3. Establish good cause with concrete, verifiable facts (never conclusory statements)
4. Check rule compliance (checklist below)
5. Draft strongest argument first; descriptive headings; 3–5 pages max
6. Verify all dates, formatting, and representations (checklist below)

Good Cause — Required Specificity

Each ground requires concrete detail:

| Ground | Required Details | |--------|-----------------| | Conflicting trial | Case name, court, trial dates, why reassignment impossible, hours/day consumed | | Record complexity | Page count, transcript volumes, exhibit count, discrete issues on appeal | | Novel legal issues | Specific issue; recent law changes, circuit splits, or first-impression questions | | Transcript delay | Reporter name, date ordered, expected delivery, testimony impacted | | Illness/emergency | Detail establishing genuineness; supporting docs filed under seal | | Expert consultation | Nature of expertise, timeline, why brief cannot proceed without it |

Opposing Counsel Position

• Consent — Feature in introduction and argument; include language of agreement; consider stipulated motion
• Non-opposition — Distinguish from consent; note conditions
• Opposition — Acknowledge directly; address concerns; explain why good cause outweighs prejudice
• Unreachable — Document all contact attempts with dates and methods (email timestamps, call logs)

Rule Compliance Checklist

• [ ] Motion filed before current deadline expires
• [ ] Within limits on number/cumulative length of extensions
• [ ] Extension won't delay oral argument
• [ ] Pre-filing conferral with opposing counsel completed (if required)
• [ ] Page limits and formatting requirements met
• [ ] Proposed order formatted per local rules

Verification Checklist

• [ ] All dates accurate and internally consistent
• [ ] Extension length reasonable (typically 14–30 days; longer needs extraordinary justification)
• [ ] Proposed deadline avoids weekends, holidays, court recess
• [ ] Opposing counsel's position accurately and fairly represented
• [ ] Proposed order matches relief requested in motion body
• [ ] Format complies with local rules (font, margins, spacing, filing method)
• [ ] Supporting documents referenced and attached

Pitfalls

• No conclusory assertions — never "counsel is busy"; every claim needs specific supporting facts
• Misrepresenting opposing counsel's position risks sanctions and professional responsibility violations
• Frame positively — extension enables quality advocacy, not compensation for late starts
• First request advantage — if first extension, state prominently that no prior extensions were sought
• Credibility — every factual assertion must be verifiable from the record or attached documentation
• Proposed deadline — confirm it doesn't conflict with other case events

---

Key changes made:

1. Removed tags — not part of the Agent Skills spec; only name and description in frontmatter
2. Tightened description — kept within spec limits, same trigger guidance
3. Consolidated structure — merged the original "Output Structure", "Process", and "Guidelines" sections into a cleaner flow: Document Structure → Workflow → reference tables → checklists → pitfalls
4. Split checklists — separated rule compliance (pre-draft) from verification (post-draft) for clearer workflow stages
5. Removed redundant prose — eliminated repeated framing; each section now earns its tokens
6. Reduced from 87 → 72 lines while preserving all domain-critical legal content

Want me to write this to the file?