United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General
W. HOUGH Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Jennifer Nash et al., by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Dennis W. Hough,
Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an order
enlarging the time for Defendants' to file dispositive
motions. This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. Proc") 6(b) and is
based upon the following Points and Authorities and all
pleadings and papers on file herein. This Motion is made in
good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Martinez ("Plaintiff) is a Nevada Department of
Corrections ("NDOC") inmate proceeding pro
se in this § 1983 action. Plaintiff has been
released from prison. After screening, the Court construed
Plaintiffs' allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim
regarding condition of confinement. On February 26, 2019,
parties participated in an Early Mediation Conference, but a
settlement did not result. (ECF No. 14).
the parties were unable to settle this case at the Inmate
Early Mediation Conference, (ECF No. 15), and Defendants
answered, (ECF No. 18), this Court issued its Scheduling
Order. (ECF No. 19) In the Scheduling Order, the Court
ordered the parties to submit any motions for summary
judgment by September 5, 2019.
Defendants are unable to comply with this deadline.
Defendants need additional time to respond because the
Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is
currently severely short-staffed. The burden this has placed
on the attorneys remaining in the division, including
Defendants' counsel, is currently
overwhelming. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully
request that this Honorable Court allow them sixty (60)
additional days, or up to and including Thursday November 4,
2019, to file their dispositive 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).
deadline to file their dispositive motion is Thursday
September 5, 2019. As the deadline has not yet expired, they
must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requested
enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for them
to file their motion, because their counsel is currently
unable to complete the motion due to the manner in which
severe short-staffing in this division of the Office of the
Attorney General has impacted counsel's current workload.
Defendants are seeking this enlargement in good faith and not
for the purpose of any unnecessary delay. Moreover,
Defendants do not perceive any ...