From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Honeycutt v. Baca

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Apr 30, 2019
Case No. 3:17-cv-00230-MMD-CBC (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 3:17-cv-00230-MMD-CBC

04-30-2019

TODD M. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff, v. ISIDRO BACA, et al., Defendants.

AARON D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1134 E-mail: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Isidro Baca, Laurie Hoover, Michelle Hicks-Moses, Shannon Moyle, Jorja Powers, Holly Skulstad, David Tristan, and Brian Ward


AARON D. FORD

Attorney General
GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142

Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: (775) 684-1134
E-mail: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants
Isidro Baca, Laurie Hoover, Michelle Hicks-
Moses, Shannon Moyle, Jorja Powers, Holly
Skulstad, David Tristan, and Brian Ward DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(First Request)

Defendants, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this honorable Court for an enlargement of time to submit their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), the following memorandum of points and authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. ARGUMENT

Defendants respectfully request a fourteen (14) day extension of time out from the current deadline (April 29, 2019) to file a reply brief. Counsel for Defendants is confronted with numerous competing deadlines and a high workload due to staffing changes in the Office of the Attorney General. Furthermore, defense counsel is travelling out of the jurisdiction for the week of April 29, to return next week.

However, such obstacles are currently being resolved and the requested extension of time should afford Defendants adequate time to file a reply brief in this case.

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements 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.

"The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired)." Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that "the practicalities of life" (such as an attorney's "conflicting professional engagements" or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline. Id. Extensions of time "usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made." Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party's diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Defendants' request is timely and its limited nature will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiff's case, but will allow for a thorough briefing and full analysis of the issues argued in the dispositive motion. The requested fourteen (14) day extension of time should permit Defendants time to adequately research and respond to Plaintiff's opposition brief. Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested extension of time. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request a fourteen (14) day extension of time from the current deadline to file a reply brief in this case, with a new deadline to and including Monday, May 13, 2019.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2019.

AARON D. FORD

Attorney General

By: /s/_________

GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE

Deputy Attorney General

State of Nevada

Bureau of Litigation

Public Safety Division

Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ _________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: 4/30/2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that on this 29th day of April, 2019, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request), by U.S. District Court CM/CEF Electronic Filing on: Todd Honeycutt #63545
Care of NNCC Law Librarian
Northern Nevada Correctional Center
P.O. Box 7000
Carson City, NV 89702
lawlibrary@doc.nv.gov

/s/_________

An employee of the

Office of the Attorney General


Summaries of

Honeycutt v. Baca

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Apr 30, 2019
Case No. 3:17-cv-00230-MMD-CBC (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2019)
Case details for

Honeycutt v. Baca

Case Details

Full title:TODD M. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff, v. ISIDRO BACA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Apr 30, 2019

Citations

Case No. 3:17-cv-00230-MMD-CBC (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2019)