United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD L. GRUBER, Plaintiff,
KAREN GEDNEY, et al., Defendants.
PAUL LAXALT Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public
Safety Division 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 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 91.
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
encountered an office emergency and sought until April 12,
2018 to file her clients' reply brief. ECF No. 96.
request for two additional days, however, was shortsighted,
because it did not allow this Court sufficient time to rule
on the motion. Because this Court had not ruled on their
second request for an enlargement of time, Defendants did not
file their reply and awaited this Court's ruling. Earlier
today, April 16, 2018, this honorable Court granted
Defendants' second request for an enlargement of time and
filed its order. ECF No. 97. As the deadline for Defendants
to file their reply passed before this Court filed its order
granting their motion for an enlargement of time, Defendants
respectfully make this third request for an enlargement of
time and submit their reply brief contemporaneously with this
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.
a party requesting an enlargement of time to complete an act
after the expiration of the time to do so must show
"excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). The
Supreme Court has outlined several factors for determining
when neglect is excusable for the purposes of FRCP
6(b)(1)(B). Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.
Ltd. P'ship., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Those
factors are as follows: "the danger of prejudice to the
[non-movant], the length of the delay and its potential
impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith."
Defendants sought and received two (2) additional days to
file their reply brief. Although this honorable Court allowed
Defendants up to and including April 12, 2018 to file their
brief, Defendants did not learn of the Court's decision
until today, April 16, 2018, at 2:06 PM. Defendants did not
file their reply on April 12, 2018, because this Court had
not yet decided their motion, so they were uncertain if
filing the reply was appropriate on that date. In retrospect,
Defendants' counsel should have requested a minimum
extension of one week in order to allow this Court to enter
Defendants assert that their neglect in failing to file their
reply brief is excusable. First, Defendants do not anticipate
any unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. Second, Defendants are
solely two (2) business days late in filing their reply, so
they do not foresee any impact-and especially not any
negative impact-on the Court's proceedings. The reason
for the delay in filing the reply until today is that this
Court did not decide Defendants' second request for an
enlargement of time until earlier today, when the requested
deadline had already passed. As stated, Defendants should not
have requested such a short deadline in their second request,
so that this Court could have had sufficient ...