Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for extension of time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) where the record showed good cause and no bad faith or undue prejudice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Where a party moves three days before the deadline for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A), alleges “good cause” for the extension, and the record is devoid of bad faith or undue prejudice to the nonmovant, does the district court abuse its discretion by denying the motion and denying any additional time to file a responsive pleading. Where a party moves for reconsideration of denial of a motion for an extension of time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1)(A) where the order denying the motion made no finding of bad faith, made no finding of undue prejudice to the nonmovant, and was based on substantial errors of law and fact, does the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. u II. RELATED CASES Hermann y. McFarland, No. 22-10644, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judgment entered September 28, 2022 Hermann v. McFarland, No. 1:20-cv-02313-ELR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Judgment entered February 16, 2022.