United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, #13142 Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division
Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker, Mark Boyd, Rebecca
Boyd, Dwayne Deal, Charles Dudley, Sheryl Foster, William
Gittere, Curtis Kerner, James Lester, E.K. McDaniel, Williams
Moore, Dwight Neven, Brian Sandoval, Tasheena Sandoval, Scott
Sisco, Donald Southworth, and Brian Williams
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SISCO'S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Scott Sisco, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney
General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle,
Deputy Attorney General, hereby moves this Court for a second
enlargement of time to answer Plaintiff's
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case is a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 15 at 1. Plaintiff, Joseph
Antonetti (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of
the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). Id.
After Defendants answered Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 46, this Court issued its Scheduling
Order, which, inter alia, set forth the time
permitted for discovery. ECF No. 47 at 2.
21, 2019, this Honorable Court graciously granted Defendant
Sisco's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer
Plaintiff's Interrogatories and allowed Sisco up to and
including Wednesday, June 19, 2019, to answer or otherwise
respond. ECF No. 59. Unfortunately, due to a calendaring
error at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), the
responses to the interrogatories were not served upon
Plaintiff. Moreover, the OAG has not yet received draft
responses from Sisco. Accordingly, Sisco respectfully
requests this Court allow him thirty (30) additional days, or
up to and including Friday, July 19, 2019, to serve his
responses on Plaintiff.
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
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
clerical error occurred at the OAG, so the deadline to serve
Sisco's responses to the interrogatories was missed.
Additionally, the OAG has not yet received draft responses
from Sisco, so he need additional time to respond. Sisco
assert the calendaring error constitutes excusable neglect
for the requested enlargement. Had the matter been properly
calendared, the OAG would have timely secured responses from
Sisco and served those responses on Plaintiff. The requested
enlargement should not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, nor
should it impact these proceedings in any meaningful manner.
Furthermore, Sisco makes this request in good faith and not
for the purpose of unnecessary delay.
on the foregoing, Defendant Sisco respectfully request that
he be allowed up to and including Friday, July 19, 2019, to
respond to Plaintiffs ...