Minshew v. Donley et al

Filing 123

ORDER Granting 111 Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions. Dispositive Motions due by 3/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10

MARY MAUREEN MINSHEW,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL B. DONLEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:10-cv-01593-PMP-PAL
ORDER

11
12

Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Dkt.

13

#111).The court has considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. #113), and Defendants’ Reply

14

(Dkt. #122).

15

The motion seeks a 30-day extension of time from February 29, 2012, to March 30, 2012, to file

16

dispositive motions. Counsel for the Defendants states that he has been involved in a complex, medical

17

malpractice case that has consumed a great deal of his time. Additionally, counsel’s main point of

18

contact at the Air Force was out of her office for two weeks in mid-February because of reserve duty.

19

Counsel for Defendants must attend a DOJ training seminar in Columbia, South Carolina the week of

20

March 12, 2012. Finally, the civil division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is busy, understaffed, and has

21

unfilled open AUSA positions for well over a year.

22

Plaintiff objects to the request for an extension of time stating she is fully prepared to submit her

23

dispositive motion. Plaintiff argues that this case has already been substantially delayed because of an

24

interlocutory appeal later abandoned without explanation by the federal Defendants, and that the

25

discovery schedule has been extended several times. Finally, fact witness depositions were completed

26

by December 9, 2011, and Plaintiff objects to any further delay in her case.

27
28

The federal Defendants reply that Plaintiff does not address any of the grounds upon which they
relied in good faith to seek an extension, and that the motion does not establish that Plaintiff will be

1
2

prejudiced by the requested delay.
Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court finds the federal Defendants have stated

3

good cause for a 30-day extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions. However, absent

4

compelling circumstances, no further extensions will be allowed.

5

IT IS ORDERED that:

6

1.

Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Dkt. #111) is

7

GRANTED, and Defendants shall have until March 30, 2012, to file dispositive

8

motions.

9

2.

Absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of good cause, no further

10

extensions will be allowed.

11

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012.

12
13
14

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2