Maestas
v.
LeGrand

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADAJul 18, 2012
Case No. 3:10-cv-00585-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Jul. 18, 2012)

Case No. 3:10-cv-00585-HDM-VPC

07-18-2012

NICHOLAS V. MAESTAS, Plaintiff, v. LeGRAND, et al. Defendants.

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO Attorney General KAITLYN MILLER Attorneys for Defendants Travis Bennett, Bruce Harkreader, Valaree Olivas, and Kirk Widmar


CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO


Attorney General


KAITLYN MILLER


Attorneys for Defendants


Travis Bennett, Bruce Harkreader,


Valaree Olivas, and Kirk Widmar


DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE

JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER

Defendants, by and through counsel, Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Kaitlyn Miller, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for a thirty (30) day enlargement of time to file the Joint Pre-trial Order. The instant Motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all other papers and pleadings on file herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants seek a thirty day enlargement of time up to and including August 10, 2012 in which to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order in this matter.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. DISCUSSION

A. Good Cause Exists to Grant the Instant Enlargement of Time, Which is Not Made For The Purpose Of Delay.

FRCP 6(b) addresses extending time, stating:

(1) In General.
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 the request for extension of time before time then fixed for purpose in question has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line, Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa.1962). Extensions of time may always be asked for, and usually are granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D.Ohio 1947). Good cause exists to enlarge the time by which a party may file a brief where additional time is needed to prepare such a brief. See O'Connor v. U.S. I.R.S., 698 F.Supp. 204, 205 (D. Nev. 1988) (district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to oppose a motion for summary judgment); Germaine Music v. Universal Songs of Polygram, 275 F.Supp.2d 1288, 1301 (district court granted movant's motion for additional time to oppose a motion for summary judgment, in part due to movant's need to acquire or prepare extensive documents so as to be able to adequately oppose the motion).

The Joint Pre-Trial Order is currently due July 12, 2012; accordingly the instant request for an enlargement of time is timely, as the original period to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order has not expired. Defendants are in the process of drafting the JPTO. Once drafted, Defendants will then send Plaintiff the document for review, revisions and approval. Accordingly, defense counsel requests a brief, thirty day enlargement of time up to and including August 10, 2012 in which to file the parties' Joint Pre-Trial Order.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Motion for Enlargement of Time to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order be GRANTED.

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO


Attorney General


By: _______________


KAITLYN MILLER


Deputy Attorney General


Bureau of Litigation


Attorneys for Defendant

_______________


U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that on July 12, 2012, I have caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served, by mailing a true and correct copy to the following: NICHOLAS V. MAESTAS #75777
LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER
1200 PRISON ROAD
LOVELOCK NV 89419-5110


Britta Appel