Opinion
2:19-cv-00985-CDS-NJK
10-11-2023
BRIAN BORENSTEIN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE ANIMAL FOUNDATION, et al, Defendants.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. MELCIC ROBERT S. MELCIC, ESQ. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. MELCIC Attorney for Plaintiff Brian Barenstein.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. MELCIC ROBERT S. MELCIC, ESQ. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. MELCIC Attorney for Plaintiff Brian Barenstein.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITIONS [ECFS 369 & 370] TO PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION [ECF 361] TO REOPEN AND EXTEND DEPOSTION OF CLARK COUNTY'S RULE 30(B)(6) WITNESS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(D)(1) (SECOND REQUEST)
NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Brian Borenstein, by and through his counsel, Raelene K. Palmer, Esq. of The Palmer Law Firm, P.C., and Robert S. Melcic, Esq., of the Law Office of Robert S. Melcic, and hereby moves for an enlargement of time to reply to Defendants' Oppositions [ECFs 369 and 370, respectively] to Plaintiffs Renewed Motion [ECF 361] to Reopen and Extend Deposition of Clark County's Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). This Motion is brought with the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings already on file in this case, and any further briefing or oral argument that this honorable Court may wish to entertain.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff is seeking an extension until Friday, October 13, 2023, to reply to Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Reopen and Extend Deposition of Clark County's Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1).
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Motion to Reopen and Extend Deposition of Clark County's Rule 3 0(b) (6) Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), ECF 361. This motion was renewed following ECF 359, Order on Motion to Take Deposition.
Defendant Clark County opposed on September 26, 2023 [ECF 369] and Defendant The Animal Foundation opposed later that same day [ECF 370]. Defendants' Oppositions set an original deadline for Plaintiff to reply by October 3, 2023.
On that date, Plaintiff requested a six-day extension based on a verbal stipulation between the parties, which set the deadline to October 9, 2023. However, due to unforeseen health problems now affecting Plaintiffs counsel, Plaintiff has been forced to seek a second extension.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) provides in pertinent part:
(b) Extending Time.
(V) In General. 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;Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
A. Plaintiff Has Good Cause for an Extension of Time.
Plaintiff needs additional time to reply and requests until Friday, October 13, 2023. Plaintiffs counsel has been working on drafting the replies and intended to be finished on October 9, however, due to Plaintiffs counsel's unforeseen health problems, completion by midnight on October 9 was not possible.
Plaintiffs counsel also apologizes to this honorable Court that his first submission of this motion, drafted amid illness, was unclear regarding dates and documents.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant him an extension of time to reply to Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Reopen and Extend Deposition of Clark County's Rule 3 0(b) (6) Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). [ECFs 369, 370, and 361, respectively]
ORDER
Plaintiff's request is GRANTED. Plaintiff's reply is due no later than October 13, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.