United States District Court, D. Nevada
PAUL LAXALT Attorney General Frank A. Toddre II, Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney
General, Attorneys for Defendants Isidro Baca, Renee Baker,
Julio Calderin, James Cox, Brandon Lawrence, Luis Lopez,
Dwight Neven, Brian Williams and Johnny Youngblood.
MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES (THIRD
Isidro Baca, Renee Baker, Julio Calderin, James Cox, Brandon
Lawrence, Luis Lopez, Dwight Neven, Brian Williams, and
Johnny Youngblood, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Frank A. Toddre
II, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an extension of
the dispositive motion deadline for an additional forty-five
(45) days. Defendants' motion is based on Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 7 and Local Rules 7-2 and 26-4, the following
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and
papers on file and the attached Declaration of Counsel.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
an inmate civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff, Lausteveion Delano Johnson,
(Plaintiff) is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections (NDOC), currently housed at
Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC). The causes of
action took place while incarcerated at Northern Nevada
Correctional Center (NNCC), SDCC, Ely State Prison (ESP), and
High Desert State Prison (HDSP). The Original Complaint
alleged six discrete claims for Eighth Amendment Deliberate
indifference to medical needs, First Amendment Religious
exercise violations, First Amendment retaliation claims,
First Amendment access to the Courts, and Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claims. (ECF No. 2). The initial
Screening Order dismissed certain First and Eighth Amendment
claims. (ECF No. 11).
parties' Early Mediation Conference was initially set for
May 27, 2016, but was vacated for global settlement
negotiations. The parties conducted two global settlement
conferences, the final conference occurring on July 22, 2016.
No settlement was reached and Judge Foley found that all of
Johnson's cases should be returned to the normal
litigation track and lifted the associated global stay. (ECF
inmate early mediation conference was set for October 7,
2016. (ECF No. 21). A settlement was not reached. (ECF No.
24). The Court has entered its initial Scheduling Order
regarding representation and responsive pleadings. (ECF No.
filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel on October 27,
2016. (ECF No. 28). Defendants opposed on November 9, 2016.
(ECF No. 29). The Court denied the Motion finding that
Johnson had not demonstrated “exceptional
circumstances” to support an appointment. (ECF No. 33).
Defendants filed an Answer on December 16, 2016. (ECF NO.
34). The Court issued its scheduling Order, with a discovery
deadline of March 20, 2017. (ECF No. 36).
parties filed their first Motion to Extend Discovery on March
16, 2017 in order to re-propound discovery to Johnson which
had been lost during housing transfer. (ECF No. 43). The
Court granted the Order and extended the discovery deadline
until May 19, 2017 and dispositive motion deadline until June
19, 2017. (ECF No. 44).
Parties filed their Second Motion to Extend Discovery on May
25, 2017. The Defendants advised that they sought to take an
oral deposition in an effort to conserve judicial resources
and avoid unnecessary motion practice over repetitive
problems with written discovery. (ECF No. 63). The Court
granted the Order, setting a close of discovery for August 2,
2017, and a dispositive Motion Deadline of August 19, 2017.
Counsel, Frank Toddre II, deposed Lausteveion Johnson at High
Desert State Prison on July 21, 2017. The deposition was
continued twice due to operational conflicts at the Prison.
The Deposition Court Reporter advised that the deposition
transcript would likely be available three weeks after the
deposition, with a hopeful date of August 11, 2017.
parties discussed an extension of the dispositive motion only
after the deposition and agreed that a brief extension of the
dispositive motion deadline only was appropriate based upon
the following: 1) Both parties needed more time than a
week with the transcript to effectively utilize the
transcript for dispositive motions; 2) Mr. Johnson has what
appears to be a firm two week trial setting on August 21,
2017,  in
Case No. 2:14-cv-00110; 3) there would be no additional
discovery or extension of discovery deadlines; 4) the parties
are conducting meaningful global settlement discussions from
the -110 case that will likely have an impact upon the
instant matter; and 5) the parties have an Early Mediation
Conference in a third case that the parties will likely be
discussing global settlements with a mediator. Accordingly, the parties
contend and agree that a forty-five day extension of the
dispositive motion deadline is reasonable and appropriate.