United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD R. GATES, Plaintiff,
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al., Defendants.
D. FORD, Attorney General, GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public
Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Romeo Aranas and Don Poag by and through counsel, Aaron D.
Ford, 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 based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the
following memorandum of points and authorities, and all
papers and pleadings on file herein.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Richard
Gates (Plaintiff), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court has
petmitted Plaintiff to proceed with three Counts alleging an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs claim against Defendants Hegge, Poag and Aranas. ECF
No. 7 at 12.
March 19, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment (MSJ). ECF No. 38. Plaintiff opposed the motion on
April 4, 2019. ECF No. 43. Defendants reply is thetefore due
today, April 18, 2019. However, Defendants need additional
time to reply to Plaintiffs opposition.
Defendants' counsel encountered unexpected health
problems requiring surgery and preventing her from being in
the office. Although counsel has now returned to work, her
professional obligations have been especially demanding as a
result of her absence. Therefore, counsel respectfully
requests one additional week to file her clients reply.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend
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. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendants to
reply to Plaintiffs opposition to their MSJ is due today, so
they are seeking an extension before the expiration of the
deadline. Accordingly, Defendants need only ...