Opinion
3:19-cv-00581-MMD-CLB
01-25-2022
MICHAEL D. RICE, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD WICKHAM, et al. Defendants.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Attorneys for Defendants Gaylene Fukagawa, John Keast, Michael Minev, Martin Naughton, Danielle Richard and Megan Sullivan.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Attorneys for Defendants Gaylene Fukagawa, John Keast, Michael Minev, Martin Naughton, Danielle Richard and Megan Sullivan.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITVE MOTIONS
Defendants Gaylene Fukagawa, John Keast, Michael Minev, Martin Naughton, Danielle Richard and Megan Sullivan by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an order extending the deadline for filing dispositive motions. This is the first request the Defendants have made. This Motion is made and based upon the attached Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file, herein, and such other and further information as this Court may deem appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND ARGUMENT
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 3-1 at 1.) Plaintiff sues Defendants Dr. Naughton, D. Richard, John Keast, M. Minev, and Gaylene Fukagawa. (Id. at 1- 1 3.) Plaintiff alleges two counts and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. (Id. at 4-9.) Plaintiff alleges he was not adequately treated for Hepatitis C.
This Court issued a scheduling order, (ECF No. 16) which set a dispositive motion deadline of January 27, 2022. Counsel for the Defendant is scheduled for a jury trial in front of District Judge Jones to begin Monday, January 31, 2022. Mason v Woods 3:18-cv-00151-RCJ-WGC. Additionally, Counsel has a meet and confer with Plaintiff scheduled that may affect the dispositive motion. Therefore, the Defendants request an additional 30 days to file their dispositive motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions 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.
Defendants' request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiffs case, but will allow for a thorough opportunity to review the case through Summary Judgment. The requested extension of time should permit the Defendants to file a well-researched and proper Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. Counsel has been preparing for trial and will be meeting with the Plaintiff in the next several days. Therefore, the Defendants request additional time to prepare for the dispositive motion.
II. CONCLUSION
Defendants assert that the requisite good cause and extenuating circumstance is present to warrant the requested extension of time. Therefore, the Defendants requests an extension, until February 28, 2022, to file their Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2