With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". oppositions in compliance with the local rules.” Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2003). The plaintiffs received extensions running nearly four months. They failed twice, as the district court pointed out, to file for an extension of time before the deadline to oppose summary judgment passed. Further, the plaintiffs’ opposition dribbled into court over the course of two and a half months, not arriving in complete form until a full three months after the court’s final deadline — seven months after the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed. This record supports the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ disregard for the court’s deadlines was “blatant” and inexcusable. See Cordero-Soto v. Island Finance, Inc., 418 F.3d 114, 118 (1st Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We are not swayed by the plaintiffs’

A: holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion
B: holding no abuse of discretion in district courts denial of request for extension of time and treatment of summary judgment motion as unopposed after partys repeated failure to comply with deadlines
C: holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
D: holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion
B.