Opinion
3:21-cv-00341-RCJ-CLB
08-04-2023
WILLIE LEE JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. J. HAINES, et al., Defendants.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Jesse Haines
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant Jesse Haines
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (SECOND REQUEST)
Defendant, Jesse Haines, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Andrew C. Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, hereby respectfully move this Court for an extension of time to file dispositive motions in this matter. This Motion is made and based upon the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and LR 26-3.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Willie Lee Jefferson (Jefferson), asserting claims arising under 42. U.S.C. §1983. Jefferson is currently an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and presently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). Jefferson was allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants, Jesse Haines (Haines) and John Doe, once Jefferson discovery his/her identity through this Court's mandatory screening process. (ECF No. 3 at 9:17-18). As of the date of this Motion, John Doe has not yet been identified.
On December 29, 2022, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan with July 19, 2023, as the deadline for filing Dispositive Motions. (ECF No. 24 at 6:1; 6:22-23). Initially, Defense Counsel requested a sixty-day (60) extension of time to file dispositive motions (See ECF No. 28). At which time, the court denied the request with leave to refile. (See generally ECF No. 29). Ultimately, after refiling the request (ECF No. 30), this Court granted the extension ordering dispositive motions be filed on or before August 9, 2023. (ECF No. 31).
A. Discovery Completed
• Defendant's Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
• Defendant Jesse Haines' Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents [Set One]
• Defendant Jesse Haines' Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions [Set One]
• Defendant Jesse Haines' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories [Set One] • Defendant's First Supplement to Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
B. Discovery That Remains to be Completed
• Jefferson recently filed a Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In that motion, Jefferson asserts the Defendants are withholding brady material other discovery matters as well as a request for counsel. (See generally ECF No. 32).
C. Reasons why the Deadlines Were not Satisfied
Defense Counsel requests an additional fourteen (14) days to file dispositive motions. First, Defense Counsel submits that his recent and upcoming schedule and workload constitutes good cause for granting an extension of time to file Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Initially, Defense Counsel has a dispositive motion due on August 7, 2023, in the following case: Lausteveion Johnson v. Davis, et al., USDC 3:21-cv-00403-RCJ-CSD. Additionally, Defense Counsel is scheduled to be in a week-long jury trial beginning August 7, 2023, in the following case: Brett Doyle v. State of Nevada et. al., USDC 3:19-cv-00725. Defense Counsel was also scheduled to be in another week-long jury trial commencing August 15, 2023, in the following case: Justin Edmiston v. Saucedo, et al., USDC 3:21-cv-00245-MMD-CSD, however, was vacated on the date of this motion. So, Defense Counsel was spending time working to prepare each jury trial.
The Ninth Circuit provided a non-exhaustive list of valid good-cause reasons in the context of F.R.C.P. 6(b). See Ahanchia v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253. The Ninth Circuit noted reasons such as holidays, weekends, prior commitments, previously planned trips, other occupational duties, personal and familial obligations, and the health of legal professionals. Id. at 1258-60.
Second, prior to submitting dispositive motions in this present matter, Defense Counsel would like additional time to confer with Mr. Jefferson and the NDOC in consideration of settling this matter. Unfortunately, Defense Counsel is unable to meet Jefferson until August 14, 2023. The reason Defense Counsel has been unable to meet with Mr. Jefferson up to this point is because counsel was meeting with clients, witnesses, and the Plaintiff in the aforementioned jury trials. So, Defense Counsel was unavailable until after August 9, 2023, to meet with Mr. Jefferson. Additionally, Defense Counsel would like to meet with Mr. Jefferson in-person to discuss the possibility of settling this matter as well as the current discovery issues he has. This extension will allow the parties to discuss those issues and possibly reach a resolution. Therefore, Defense Counsel makes this request in good faith and not to cause undue delay or for any other improper purpose.
D. Current Deadlines
• Dispositive Motion Deadline:
August 9, 2023
• Joint Pretrial Order (if no dispositive motions filed):
September 8, 2023
E. Proposed Deadlines
• Dispositive Motion Deadline:
August 23, 2023
• Joint Pretrial Order (if no dispositive motions filed):
September 22, 2023
F. Good Cause Support the Extension of Time
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows:
This Court should find good cause supports this request. 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.
Even though this request is untimely, the requisite good cause is present in order to have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Jefferson in-person to discuss these issues and hopefully resolve them. Additionally, Defense Counsel was hoping to meet with Mr. Jefferson prior to August 9, 2023, in doing so, did not file this until now. So, Defense Counsel needs this additional to meet and confer with Mr. Jefferson as well as the NDOC to further discuss, and possibly pursue, a settlement in this matter. Based upon that, Defense Counsel asserts that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the extension of time.
II. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Defense Counsel respectfully requests an additional fourteen (14) days to include up to and until August 23, 2023, to file dispositive motions in this matter.
ORDER
Defendant shall have until August 23, 2023 to file dispositive motions. No further extensions of time will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.