at *1 (D.Mont. Feb. 17, 2006). 2 . "A request for an extension under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) should be made upon formal application for an order in compliance with the provisions of Rule 7(b)(1) relating to motions. Because Rule 7(b)(1)(B) requires that the application state with particularity the grounds therefore, the movant must allege the facts constituting excusable neglect; the mere assertion of excusable neglect unsupported by facts has been held to be insufficient.” Inst. for Policy Studies, 246 F.R.D. at 383. 3 . The Court notes that Ms. Whitney’s Opposition to Motion to [sic] Defendant’s Motion for an Order for Plaintiffs Independent Medical Examination ("IME Opp.”) [# 19] is untimely and therefore must be stricken. See Smith v. Dist. of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450, 457 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Motion for an IME was filed on May 2,
holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys fees because plaintiffs rule 54d2 motion was untimely and they had failed to show excusable neglect that would justify extending the time they had to file such a motion holding that it is an abuse of the courts discretion to consider an untimely filing in the absence of a motion to enlarge demonstrating excusable neglect holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim