Chudacoff v. University Medical Center Of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 648

ORDER Denying 646 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/22/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

RICHARD CHUDACOFF,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:08-cv-00863-RCJ-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Extend Time (#646)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Ellerton, Bernstein, Carrison, Roberts,

15

and Medical/Dental Staff of UMC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Extension of Time (#646), filed on

16

March 19, 2013. Defendants’ Memorandum of Fees regarding the costs incurred for bringing their

17

Motion (#609) was due February 15, 2013. See February 1, 2013 Order, Doc. #615 at 10:8-17.

18

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Fees (#631) was due March 1, 2013. Id. at

19

10:1-5. Defendant did not file either memorandum, and now seeks an enlargement of time to do

20

so.

21

At the January 17, 2013 hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#441).

22

See Minutes of Proceedings, Doc. #603. The Court, in accordance with Rule 37(a)(5)(A), granted

23

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (#443) and awarded Plaintiff the costs incurred in bringing the

24

Motion to Compel (#441). See Order, Doc. #615. The Court further ordered, however, that the

25

awarded fees be offset by the expenses incurred by Defendants in bringing their Emergency Motion

26

to Enforce Amended Stipulated Protective Order (#609). See id. at 8:19-21. The Court ordered

27

both Plaintiff and Defendants to file memoranda of costs and fees associated with bringing their

28

respective Motions (#441, #609) no later than February 15, 2013. See id. at 9:19-27, 10:8-16.

1
2

Plaintiff filed his Memorandum (#631) on February 15, 2013.
The Court may, for good cause, grant an extension of time on a matter “made after the time

3

[to file] has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Howard v. Skolnik,

4

2012 WL 3656494, *2 (D. Nev., August 23, 2012); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). “[T]he

5

determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four

6

factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its

7

potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted

8

in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.2000). Here,

9

Defendants’ counsel avers that the filing deadlines for Defendants’ memoranda were mis-

10

calendared, and counsel did not notice the oversight because of engagement in a trial in an

11

unrelated case. The Order (#615) setting the briefing schedule for the memoranda was entered on

12

February 1, 2013. Defendants’ counsel’s trial began on February 11, 2013, ten days after the Order

13

(#615) was entered and four days before the first deadline. See Decl. of Kim Mandelbaum, Esq.,

14

Doc. #646, Exh. B at 10:8. The Court finds that the reason for the delay does not rise to the level of

15

excusable neglect. Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time (#646) is denied.

17

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2013.

18
19
20

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2