a claim to proceed when it would otherwise be barred by the statute ofhimitations. It is true that the filing deadline of Bankruptcy Rule 4007 is interpreted strictly. “The strict time limitation placed upon creditors who wish to object to a debt’s dischargeability reflects the Bankruptcy Code’s goal of providing debtors with a fresh start.” State Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Dunlap (In re Dunlap), 217 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir.2000); Neeley v. Murchison, 815 F.2d 345, 347 (5th Cir.1987) (stating that Rule 4007 “places a heavy burden on the creditor to protect his rights”). But Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 can be and have been harmonized with other principles and rules without losing their strictness. See, e.g., Coston v. Bank of Malvern (In re Coston), 987 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Dunlap, 217 F.3d at 314-17 (holding that the
holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline holding in dispute involving two insurers the federal action against only one insurer should be stayed in favor of state action involving both holding that federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise their subject matter jurisdiction despite the pendency of state court proceedings holding that the deadline ran from the second setting of  341 meeting when the initial proceedings were stayed due to the pendency of arelated action in another state holding that a federal action was properly stayed pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings where the action involved a matter of state policythe scope of eminent domain powers of municipalities under state law