Parker v. Ed ( 2024 )

1 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 JANET E. TRAUT, Bar No. 8695 Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1120 5 E-mail: jtraut@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendants Michael Clifton Christopher Davis, David Drummond, 7 Eric Maurer, and Christopher Miller 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 DIONDRAE PARKER, Case No. 3:23-cv-00137-MMD-CSD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 vs. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR 14 ED, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Michael Clifton, Christopher Davis, David Drummond, Eric Maurer, 18 and Christopher Miller, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the 19 State of Nevada, and Janet E. Traut, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an 20 enlargement of time in which to file their Motion for Summary Judgment. 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. ARGUMENT 23 The Court may extend the time allowed for an act when good cause is shown to do 24 so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 25 On motion for enlargement of time, determination of whether “excusable neglect” 26 has been established is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant 27 circumstances surrounding party's omission including (1) danger of prejudice, (2) length 1 includes whether it was within reasonable control of party seeking to show excusable 2 neglect, and (4) whether that party acted in good faith. Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue 3 Shield of Kan., D. Kan. 2007, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1225 , affirmed 287 Fed. Appx. 631, 2008 4 WL 2662595. 5 “a finding of excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)[ (1)(B) ] requires both a demonstration of good faith by the parties seeking the 6 enlargement and also it must appear that there was a reasonable basis for not complying within the specified period.” 7 In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws Litig., 493 F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir.1974). See Putnam v. Morris, 833 F.2d 903, 905 (10th 8 Cir.1987) (“[S]ome showing of good faith on the part of the party seeking the enlargement and some reasonable basis for 9 noncompliance within the time specified is normally required.”) (quoting Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 10 1304, 1305 (5th Cir.1985)). “[I]t is well established that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, and mistakes construing 11 the rules do not constitute excusable neglect for purposes of Rule 6(b).” Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232, 1238 (10th 12 Cir.2005). 13 Stark-Romero v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co. (AMTRAK), 275 F.R.D. 544, 547–48 (D.N.M. 14 2011). 15 Here, the undersigned counsel had technical difficulties on the evening of June 16 12, 2024 that prevented timely e-filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment and 17 related exhibits. 18 Parker will not be prejudiced by a delay of several hours. Neither should the 19 Court be impacted by this delay of less than one day. Counsel checked every hour to see 20 whether access to the network or the virtual private network was restored/restarted 21 and e-filed as soon as this motion could be prepared. Counsel certifies there was no 22 intent to delay or to obstruct; counsel has acted in good faith. 23 II. CONCLUSION 24 Defendants respectfully requests this Court extend the deadline for the 25 dispositive motion in this matter by one day. Defendants assert the requisite good cause 26 / / 27 / / 1 || is present to warrant an extension of time. 2 DATED this 16th day of June 2024. 3 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 5 py. Mut. taut ANET E. TRAUT, Bar No. 8695 6 Deputy Attorney General 7 Attorneys for Defendants Christopher Davis, David Drummond, Eric Maurer, 8 Christopher Miller, and Michael Clifton 9 10 || TIS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: June 14, 2024. 1 CS 13 pm te Rs 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28