We recently reported on the Sixth Circuit’s practice of curtailing extensions of time and not granting them as freely as in the past. Thus far, the reports related to that are largely anecdotal and there is no formal policy change or related pronouncement from the Court. That could change, as illustrated by a recent Second Circuit decision, RLI Insurance Company v. JDA Marine Inc. In that decision, the Second Circuit refused to reinstate an appeal after a dismissal based on the failure to file a brief in compliance with a scheduling order. The decision is certainly an interesting (albeit perhaps a frightening) read, with the Second Circuit chronicling its past history of extensions of time and the effect that those have on its docket. The Court noted: “altering a culture in which much of the bar had come to believe that briefing schedules were issued only to be automatically extended until convenient for counsel to file a brief was difficult.” The decision in the Second Circuit case, which refused to permit a subsequent request for extension, shows that the Second Circuit’s policy has teeth. The Sixth Circuit, at least at this point, has not made any such formal pronouncement related to extensions of time. However, the Second Circuit’s opinion provides a cautionary tale for those attorneys who might believe that extensions of time will be automatically granted in perpetuity.