Cheatham v. Jones ( 2024 )

1 A AAtRtoOrnNe yD G. FeOneRrDal 2 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-3370 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: nclaus@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Dawn Jones, Michelle Perkins and William Reubart 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 EMMANUEL CHEATHAM, Case No. 2:23-cv-00475-GMN-EJY 12 Plaintiff, MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 45 13 vs. DAYS 14 JONES, et al., [SECOND REQUEST] 15 Defendants. 16 Defendants Dawn Jones, Michelle Perkins and William Reubart, by and through 17 counsel, Nevada Attorney General, Aaron D. Ford, and Deputy Attorney General, Nathan 18 M. Claus, hereby submit their joint motion to extend discovery 45 days. This Motion is 19 made pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), and it is based upon the 20 following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all other pleadings and files 21 contained herein. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I. NATURE OF THE MOTION 24 Good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines in this matter. 25 II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE 26 Plaintiff, Emmanuel Cheatham (Cheatham), filed his original complaint on March 27 28, 2023,1 and this Court completed mandatory screening of the complaint on July 17, 28 1 2023. Cheatham was permitted to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim of 2 deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Dawn Jones, Michelle Perkins, 3 and William Reubart.3 On February 23, 2024, this Court issued a scheduling order and 4 set discovery deadlines in this matter.4 The parties submitted a joint request to extend 5 discovery on August 21, 2024,5 and on August 22, 2024, this court granted the joint 6 motion and set the following discovery deadlines:6 7 • Discovery cutoff: September 20, 2024 8 • Dispositive motions: November 20, 2024 9 • Joint proposed pretrial order: December 20, 2024, or 30 days after resolution 10 of dispositive motions 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), the court may, for good cause, extend the 13 time in which an act must be done if a request is made before the original time or its 14 extension expires. The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, 15 is to present request for extension of time before time then fixed for the purpose in 16 question has expired.7 Extensions of time may always be asked for and usually are 17 granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule.8 18 Under Local Rule 26-3, “[a] motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery 19 plan, scheduling order, or other order must … be supported by a showing of good cause for 20 the extension.” In addition, “[a] request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must 21 be supported by a showing of good cause.”9 22 At this time, the discovery completed includes Defendants sending initial 23 disclosures on February 28, 2024. Plaintiff submitted written discovery on May 14, 2024, 24 25 2 ECF No. 6. 26 3 Id. at 6. 4 ECF No. 24. 27 5 ECF No. 43. 6 ECF No. 44. 28 7 Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa.1962). 1 and Defendants provided their responses on June 11, 2024. Plaintiff mailed his specific 2 objections to the responses to the discovery requests provided by Defendants in early 3 September. On September 3, 2024, counsel for defendants and Plaintiff had a lengthy 4 phone call related to the objections. Counsel for Defendants then discussed those 5 objections with each defendant between September 4 and 5, 2024. Defendant’s answers to 6 the written discovery did not change and on September 9, a letter was mailed to Plaintiff 7 indicating so. Counsel for defendants and Plaintiff then had another lengthy phone call 8 on September 17, 2024 where the specifics of why Defendant’s answers were made the 9 way they were and Plaintiff’s intent for the questions was discussed. At the conclusion of 10 this call, Plaintiff indicated that he wanted to rewrite and send new interrogatories to 11 address the issues raised by defendants and to clarify what he wanted to address in the 12 questions. 13 Counsel for defendants and Plaintiff were in the process of trying to agree to a 14 stipulation and order for the extension, but due to delays in that communication, were 15 unable to get a final agreed upon version of this motion filed before the close of discovery 16 deadline. 17 Defendants submit that the facts and the argument contained herein constitute 18 good cause to extend all the current discovery deadlines. The Parties are diligently 19 prosecuting this case. The motion is made in good faith, without dilatory motive, does not 20 cause undue delay, and provides efficient sequencing of deadlines. This request for 21 additional time is within the 21-day requirement under Local Rule 26-3. 22 Accordingly, good cause exists for an enlargement of time of the following deadlines 23 by 45 days as follows: 24 • Discovery cutoff: November 4, 2024. 25 • Discovery motions: November 14, 2024 26 • Dispositive motions: December 4, 2024 27 • Joint proposed pretrial order: January 3, 2024, or 30 days after resolution of 28 dispositive motions. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully submit that their Motion to 3 Extend Discovery Deadlines 45 Days meets good cause and should be granted. 4 DATED this 19th day of September 2024 5 AARON D. FORD 6 Attorney General 7 /s/ Nathan M. Claus 8 Nathan M. Claus (Bar No. 15889) Deputy Attorney General 9 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 _____________________________________ U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Date: September 23, 2024 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28