Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dunn et al

Filing 78

ORDER Granting 76 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 75 Motion in Limine. Responses due by 12/2/2011. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/18/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

NANCY J. GEGENHEIMER
DUGAN BLISS
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Denver Regional Office
1801 California Street Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80202
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
2:09-cv-02213-JCM-VCF
v.
R. BROOKE DUNN
and NICHOLAS P. HOWEY,
Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________
MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT DUNN’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [DKT # 75] AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
(FIRST REQUEST)
Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. and Local Rule 6.1, Plaintiff respectfully requests
a two-week extension of time within which Plaintiff must respond to Defendant Dunn’s Motions
in Limine Nos. 1-6 [Dkt # 75, filed November 4, 2011] from its present date of November 18,
2011, up to and including December 2, 2011.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states that the extension is sought due to scheduling
issues and to give Plaintiff adequate time to respond to the Motions in Limine. Defendant Dunn
filed the Motions in Limine prior to the parties’ private mediation conference. Undersigned

counsel, Dugan Bliss, spent a day at that mediation conference as well as substantial time
traveling to and from, and preparing for, the mediation. Undersigned counsel, Nancy
Gegenheimer, has been briefing deadline-sensitive matters in other cases. Also, one day during
the normal two-week response time was a federal holiday (Veterans’ Day). The Motions in
Limine raise numerous issues regarding the admissibility of Plaintiff’s expert testimony and other
evidence, which require more than the allotted time to address. Given that trial is scheduled to
begin April 23, 2012 – more than five months from now – Plaintiff believes that a two-week
extension is reasonable and will not prejudice any party. No previous extensions have been
sought. Plaintiff asked Defendant Dunn to stipulate to this requested extension, but he opposes
the extension.

Dated: November 14, 2011.
s/ Dugan Bliss
Nancy J. Gegenheimer
Dugan Bliss
Attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
1801 California Street, Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

IT IS SO ORDERED:
____________________________________
United States District Judge
November 18, 2011
Dated:______________________________

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 14, 2011, the foregoing document was electronically filed with
the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following:
Joice B. Bass
Lewis and Roca LLP
3980 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 550
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Email: [e-mail]
Spencer H. Gunnerson
Mark M. Jones
Kemp, Jones & Coulthard LLP
3800 Howard Hughes pkwy 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Treasure R. Johnson
Venable LLP
575 7th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Email: [e-mail]
Tyson Marshall
Sean Prosser
Randall J. Fons
Morrison & Foerster LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-2040
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
s/ Nicole L. Nesvig

3