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 BOYD'S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SECOND REQUEST)
Mark Boyd, 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 an
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
Boyd's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff's Requests for Production of documents. ECF No.
56. Unfortunately, due to a calendaring error at the Office
of the Attorney General (OAG), the responses to the requests
for production of documents were not served upon Plaintiff.
Moreover, Boyd has not yet provided the OAG with the
responsive documents for Plaintiff's eighty-one (81)
requests, some of which request multiple documents, most of
which span several years, and many of which Plaintiff should
already have in his possession or could easily obtain on his
own. Accordingly, Boyd respectfully requests this Court allow
him thirty (30) additional days to respond to the discovery
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
Boyd's responses to Plaintiff's eighty-one (81)
requests for production of documents was missed.
Additionally, the OAG has not yet received the documents
responsive to those requests, some of which request multiple
documents, most of which span several years, and many of
which Plaintiff should already have in his possession or
could easily obtain on his own. Boyd asserts the calendaring
error constitutes excusable neglect for the requested
enlargement. Had the matter been properly calendared, the OAG
would have timely secured responses from Boyd 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, Boyd
makes this request in good faith and not for the purpose of
on the foregoing, Defendant Boyd respectfully request that he
be allowed up to and including Friday, July 19, 2019, to