United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General HARRY B.WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division
Attorneys for Defendants Isidro Baca and Linda Fox
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION (SECOND REQUEST)
Isidro Baca and Linda Fox, by and through counsel, Aaron D.
Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B.
Ward, 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
Heriberto Toribio-Ruiz ("Plaintiff) is a Nevada
Department of Corrections ("NDOC") inmate
proceeding pro se in this § 1983 action for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional
Center ("NNCC"). The Court allowed a single claim
for Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference to
proceed against NNCC Pharmacist Linda Fox ("Fox"),
former NNCC Pharmacy Assistant Sunshine Flores
("Floras"), former NDOC Medical Director Romeo
Arenas ("Aranas"), and NNCC Warden Isidro Baca
("Baca"). (ECF No. 3 at 3.) The claim is based on
the allegations Plaintiff continually received his
prescription pain medications late after timely requesting
refills at NNCC. (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff alleges the
violations began occurring in 2015 and are continuing through
the present. (Id)
the parties were unable to settle this case at the Inmate
Early Mediation Conference, (ECF No. 21), and Defendants
answered, (ECF No. 29), this Court issued its Scheduling
Order. (ECF No. 30) In the Scheduling Order, the Court
ordered the parties to submit any motions for summary
judgment by July 17, 2019. (Id. at 3:25-28)
Defendants were unable to comply with this deadline.
Defendants asserted they need additional time to respond
because the Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney
General was currently severely short-staffed. Defendant's
asserted the burden placed on the attorneys remaining in the
division was overwhelming. Additionally, defense counsel,
Heather Zana's last day with the office was July 18,
counsel recently accepted employed with the Litigation
Division of the Office of the Attorney General. Accordingly,
Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court
allow them thirty (30) additional days, or up to and
including Thursday, October 17, 2019, to file their
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 today, September
17, 2019. As the deadline has not yet expired, Defendants
must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requested
enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for
Defendants to file their motion because their counsel has
been recently employed with the Office of the Attorney
General and needs additional time to evaluate the case;
contact Defendants regarding potential defenses; and obtain
possible declarations in support their possible defenses.
counsel has been assigned many cases wherein dipositive
motion deadlines have been pre-set and counsel has not had
the required time to familiarize himself with the matter
prior to filing ...