Cooper et al v. Clark County Nevada et al

Filing 110

ORDER Granting 108 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Extend Tim to File Reply to Response to 87 Motion for Summary Judgment. Replies due by 6/25/2014. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 06/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

STEVEN B. WOLFSON
District Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
State Bar No. 001565
By: ROBERT T. W ARHOLA
Deputy District Attorney
500 South Grand Central Pkwy.
P. 0. Box 552215
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-2215
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

DAVID COOPER, ET AL.,

10
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

vs.
CLARK COUNTY NEVADA, ET AL.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

24
25
26

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

(First Request)

Defendants.
______________________________)~

Defendants, through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully requests that this Court
issue an Order granting an extension of time of seven (7) days, until Wednesday June 25,
2014, for Defendants to file their reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary
Judgment (#90), which is presently due on June 18, 2014.
DATED this ) (a~ day of June, 2014.
STEVEN B. WOLFSON
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

~~~

22
23

Case No: 2:10-CV-0763-KJD- GWF

By:_-.lo-------------------Deputy District Attorney
State Bar No. 004410
500 South Grand Central Pkwy.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-2215
Attorneys for Defendants

27
28
1 of3

1

2

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

On April29, 2014, the Court struck the parties filings relating to Clark County's first

3

Motion for Summary Judgment. (doc# 86). The Court gave the Defendants until May 14,

4

2014 to file "a single procedurally and substantively correct and complete Motion for

5

Summary Judgment." Order, (doc# 86), p. 2:17-18. The Court gave the Plaintiffs until May

6

28, 2014 to file "a single procedurally and substantively correct and complete response." !d.,

7

p. 2:19-20.

8

On May 14,2014, Clark County filed its revised Motion for Summary Judgment.

9

(doc. #87). On May 28, 2014, the Court granted the Plaintiffs an extension of time to June

10

11, 2014 to file their opposition brief and ordered that Clark County's reply, if any, be filed

11

by June 18, 2014. Order, (doc. #89, p. 2:6).

12

The undersigned has good cause for this request for an extension of time. The

13

undersigned has prior scheduling commitments, namely, hearings before the Clark County

14

Commission and Clark County Planning Commission on the afternoon and evening of

15

Tuesday, June 17,2014 and all day Wednesday, June 18,2014. The undersigned counsel

16

was also out-of-town Father's Day weekend, including all day Friday, June 13, 2014, on a

17

previously scheduled trip. The prior scheduled commitments interfere with his ability to

18

complete Defendants' reply by the June 18, 2014 deadline.

19

Additionally, Plaintiffs' Opposition (#90) is sixty-three (63) pages in length, that is,

20

more than double the length permitted by Local Rule 7-4, and sixteen (16) pages longer than

21

the opposition Plaintiffs filed in response to Defendants' original motion for summary

22

judgment. Plaintiffs have attached approximately 1,088 pages of exhibits to their recent

23

Opposition which appears to be substantially longer than the documentation Plaintiffs filed

24

separately in support of their original opposition. The new material and documents require

25

additional time to review and research in order to provide a response.

26
27

This request is not made for the purpose of delay or in bad faith or for any other
dilatory purpose.

28
2 of3

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), an extension oftime may be granted

2

on a showing of good cause. This is Defendants' first request for an extension of time to file

3

their reply to Plaintiffs' revised Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.

4

None of the parties will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion.

5

On June 16, 2014, the undersigned contacted counsel for Plaintiffs, Ms. Lisa

6

Rasmussen, who stated that she would not oppose Defendants' request for an extension of

7

time until June 25, 2014.

8

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant a seven (7) day

9

extension of time, until Wednesday, June 25, 2014, for Defendants to file their reply to

10

Plaintiffs' revised Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.

11
12

13

DATED this

~

\ (??
<

day of June, 2014.
STEVEN B. WOLFSON,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

14
15
16
17

By:

-=R~B-=E=-R=T-=T~.W~A-=RH-=-=---=-0-=-L-:-A---

Deputy District Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants

18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED:

20
21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
June 16, 2014
DATED: _ _ _ _ __

23
24
25
26

27
28
3 of3