United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD L. GRUBER, Plaintiff,
KAREN GEDNEY, et al., Defendants.
LYNN HARDCASTLE Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division Attorneys for
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
OBJECT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AT ECF NO. 101
C. JONES J.
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 object to the Report and Recommendation of the U.S.
Magistrate Judge at ECF No. 101. 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
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 Defendants, Romeo Aranas,
Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical need of Parkinson's disease by
refusing to treat him. Id. at 3.
November 9, 2017, Defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 67. Plaintiff filed his opposition to
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on March 20,
2018. ECF No. 91. Defendants filed their reply to
Plaintiff's opposition on April 16, 2018. ECF No. 99.
Judge Cooke entered the Report and Recommendation of U.S.
Magistrate Judge on July 11, 2018. ECF No. 101. In her Report
and Recommendation, she recommended that District Judge Jones
grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant Aranas; however,
she recommended that District Judge Jones deny summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Gedney and Defendant Marks.
Id. at 16.
Report and Recommendation states, a party wishing to object
to the Report and Recommendation must file a written
objection pursuant to 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) by July
25, 2018. Id. Unfortunately, Defendants will not be
able to file their written objection by that time.
Defendants' counsel has other deadlines (in other cases)
on July 25, 2018, which cannot be extended, and counsel is
unable to comply with those deadlines and the deadline for
the objection in this case. Accordingly, Defendants request
an additional fourteen (14) days to file their objection to
the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.
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