United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD L. GRUBER, Plaintiff,
KAREN GEDNEY, et al., Defendants.
PAUL LAXALT Attorney General
LYNN HARDCASTLE, Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for
Defendants Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
REPLY TO, PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION (ECF NO. 91) TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, by and through
counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of
Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General,
hereby move this honorable Court for an enlargement of time
to reply to Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants' motion
for summary judgment. This motion is made and based on
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1), the following memorandum of points and
authorities, and all pleadings and papers on file herein.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case is a pro se inmate civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff, Richard
Gruber (Plaintiff), alleges that Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney,
and Dana Marks (collectively, Defendants) were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need of Parkinson's
disease by refusing to treat Plaintiff. Id. at 3.
March 13, 2018, this Court extended Plaintiffs time to
respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion. ECF No.
91. Plaintiff timely filed his opposition to Defendants'
motion, see ECF No. 91, and Defendants' reply
brief was due April 3, 2018. Due to personal obligations,
Defendants' counsel was unable to complete her
clients' reply by April 3rd and moved for an enlargement
of time to file the reply. ECF No. 94. This honorable Court
graciously granted Defendants' motion and allowed
Defendants up to and including April 10, 2018 to file their
reply. ECF No. 95. Although Defendants and their counsel
intended to comply with today's deadline, counsel has
encountered an office emergency that prevents her from
finishing and filing me reply brief today. Accordingly,
counsel respectfully requests two additional days to file
Defendants' reply brief.
courts have inherent power to control their dockets.
Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel,
Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v.
Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and
provides as follows:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or
without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request
is made, before the original time or its extension expires;
or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party
failed to act because of excusable neglect.
proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is
needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an
extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a
request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose
in question has expired)." Canup v. Miss. Valley
Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The
Canup Court explained that "the practicalities
of life" (such as an attorney's "conflicting
professional engagements" or personal commitments such
as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often
necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court
deadline. Id. Extensions of time "usually are
granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made."
Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947).
The good cause standard considers a party's diligence in
seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th
Defendants request two additional days to file their reply
brief, or up to and including Thursday, April 12, 2018.
Defendants and their counsel sincerely intended to comply
with today's deadline. However, an office emergency
unfortunately prevents counsel from finishing and filing the
reply brief in accordance with today's deadline.
Consequently, Defendants respectfully request that they be
allowed to file their reply brief no later than Thursday,
April 12, 2018. Defendants have demonstrated good cause for
the enlargement of time, and they do not believe that
Plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced by this short