United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Attorneys for
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER
REQUIRING INSPECTION, COPYING, POSSESSION OF PERSONAL MEDICAL
RECORDS (First Request)
by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of
the State of Nevada, Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney
General, hereby file this motion for enlargement of time to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Order Requiring
Inspection, Copying, Possession of Personal Medical Records.
This motion is based Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1), the following
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the papers and
pleadings on file herein.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case is a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff, Kenneth Friedman
(Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections (NDOC). Id. at 2. He
alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated his
rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. Id. passim.
March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive
Relief/T.R.O. to Allow Legal Calls (ECF No. 74) and the
instant Motion for Order Requiring Inspection, Copying,
Possession of Personal Medical Records (ECF No. 73).
Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's motion for
injunctive relief at ECF No. 74; however, they have been
unable to complete their response to Plaintiff's motion
regarding his medical records. Defendants therefore request
an enlargement of time of one week (or up to and including
Monday, March 25, 2019) to respond to Plaintiff's motion.
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 Cir. 1992).
Defendants are seeking an enlargement of time to respond to
Plaintiff's motion prior to the expiration of the
deadline. Therefore, they must establish good cause for the
assert good cause exists to enlarge the time by which they
must respond to Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff filed two
motions on the same day, and Defendants responses to both
documents are due today. Defendants are filing their response
to one of those motions, but they need additional time to
respond to the second. Their counsel is currently preparing
for a jury trial scheduled in another matter, so she has had
to devote a significant amount of time to that matter.
Nonetheless, she timely filed her clients' response to
one of Plaintiff s motions, but she needs additional time to
respond to the second. Furthermore, the enlargement
Defendants seek is relatively short (just one week) and
should not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff.