Opinion
Case No. 3:16-cv-00366-MMD-WGC
12-28-2017
KEVIN FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. S. MOLLET, et al., Defendant.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON, Bar No. 10632 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1254 E-mail: bjohnson@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Christopher Hayman, Cade Herring, and Stephen Mollet
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON, Bar No. 10632
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: (775) 684-1254
E-mail: bjohnson@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Hayman, Cade Herring,
and Stephen Mollet
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
(SECOND REQUEST)
Defendants, Christopher Hayman, Cade Herring, and Stephen Mollet, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Benjamin R. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an extension of time to serve responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. This is the second extension request. This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all papers and pleadings on file herein.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. LAW AND ARGUMENT
On March 10, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff Kevin Fernandez's ("Fernandez") case and filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 3 and 4). On August 8, 2017, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint. (ECF No. 13). The Court issued a Scheduling Order setting various deadlines including discovery cut-off dates. (ECF No. 14). / / /
On or about November 12, 2017, Fernandez propounded his second set of Request for Production of Documents. Defendants previously requested and were granted an extension.
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.
The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1962). Extensions of time may always be asked for, and usually are granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947).
Defendants seek an enlargement of time to serve responses to the second set of request for production. Good cause exists to extend the time to file this motion. Counsel was in a week long jury trial in Case No. 3:13-cv-00433-MMD-WGC beginning on December 5, 2017. Due to the trial, deadlines in other cases had to be moved around. Counsel has been working diligently on responding to discovery in other cases that had deadlines moved due to trial. Because of these deadlines to respond, counsel has been unable to finalize responses to the second request for production. Defendants request an extension of fourteen days to complete the discovery responses. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request their motion for enlargement of time is granted and the deadline for serving discovery responses be extended up to and including January 11, 2018.
DATED this 28th day of December, 2017.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By: /s/_________
BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
Attorneys for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED:
/s/ _________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: December 29, 2017