Martinez v. Dzurenda ( 2019 )

TUVTYUU OUTED OY IN OY ee 1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || DENNIS W. HOUGH, Bar No. 11995 Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Public Safety Division 4 || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 5 || Tel: (775) 684-1254 E-mail: dhough@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 || Jennifer Nash 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 || DANIEL MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00530-RCJ-CBC 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 Hy. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 14 || JAMES DZURENDA, et al., ( First Request) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Jennifer Nash et al., by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of th 18 || State of Nevada, and Dennis W. Hough, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an orde 19 || enlarging the time for Defendants’ to file dispositive motions. This Motion is made pursuant to Federe 20 || Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. Proc.”) 6(b) and is based upon the following Points an 1 || Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein. This Motion is made in good faith and not fc 22 || the purposes of undue delay. 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 Daniel Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) inmate proceeding pro s 26 || in this § 1983 action. Plaintiff has been released from prison. After screening, the Court construed Plaintiffs 27 || allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim regarding condition of confinement. On February 26, 201! 28 || parties participated in an Early Mediation Conference, but a settlement did not result. (ECF No. 14). WASt FTUVEUU VOUS OY DY OMYVUUTTIOCTN Sor COU VIO Yt ] After the parties were unable to settle this case at the Inmate Early Mediation Conference, (ECE 2 || No. 15), and Defendants answered, (ECF No. 18), this Court issued its Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 19° 3 || In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered the parties to submit any motions for summary judgment by 4 || September 5, 2019. 5 Unfortunately, Defendants are unable to comply with this deadline. Defendants need additiona 6 || time to respond because the Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is currently severel} 7 || short-staffed. The burden this has placed on the attorneys remaining in the division, including Defendants 8 || counsel, is currently overwhelming.! Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this □□□□□□□□□ 9 || Court allow them sixty (60) additional days, or up to and including Thursday November 4, 2019, to file 10 || their dispositive motion. 11 | OL. LEGAL STANDARD 12 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v 13. || Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9 Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9" Cir 14 || 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: 15 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 16 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 17 party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 18 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the 19 || Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented 20 || before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line 21 |) Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (sucl 22 || as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, 23 || family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court 24 || deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.” 25 || Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’s 26 || diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 27 || 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9" Cir. 1992). 28 ' The leadership within this division is addressing this issue and, hopefully, the short-staffing will be resolved in thirty (30) to sixty (60) days. WAG TUVEUU IOUT IR SDN OUUUTTIOT ee CUCU VOI LG FT AYS OUI oS 1 || I. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants’ deadline to file their dispositive motion is Thursday September 5, 2019. As the 3 || deadline has not yet expired, they must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. 4 || Good cause exists to enlarge the time for them to file their motion, because their counsel is currently 5 || unable to complete the motion due to the manner in which severe short-staffing in this division of the 6 || Office of the Attorney General has impacted counsel’s current workload. Defendants are seeking this 7 || enlargement in good faith and not for the purpose of any unnecessary delay. Moreover, Defendants do 8 || not perceive any possible prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion is granted. Therefore, Defendants request 9 || to be allowed up to and including Thursday November 4, 2019, to file their motion. 10 || IV. CONCLUSION 1] As stated, Defendants need additional time to file their dispositive motion based on □□□□ 12 || counsel’s inability to timely complete the motion due to severe short-staffing in this division of the 13 || Office of the Attorney General. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court 14 || grant their motion and allow them up to and including Thursday November 4, 2019, to file their motion. 15 DATED this 5th day of August, 2019. 16 AARON D. FORD 7 Attorney Genera 18 ¢ kd 2k A DENNIS W. H H 19 Deputy Attorney General 20 Attorneys for Defendant 21 22 IS SO ORDERED 23 Mildicae DATED: Ay lof2(]_ 25 26 27 28 Bed YOUN OOM Cor POU I AG TN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that Iam an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that 3 || on this 5th day of August, 2019, I caused to be deposited for mailing, a true and correct copy of the 4 || foregoing, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A 5 || DISPOSITIVE MOTION ( First Request), on the following: 6 Daniel Martinez 7 || 5112 Silverheart Ave □ 3 Las Vegas, NV 89142 ) i fo, Wf 10 An Employee of the = Office of the Attorney General 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28