Eagle Rock Contracting LLC et al v. National Security Technologies, LLC

Filing 94

ORDER Granting 92 Motion to Extend Time. The Court enter an Order granting an enlargement of time, up to and including 3/3/16, in which to file each of its Replies,in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on ERCs Claims 81 , and its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTecs Counterclaims 82 . Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/17/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

Download PDF
Case 2:14-cv-01278-GMN-NJK Document 92 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 4 1 SANDRA B. WICK MULVANY (CO SBN 31972) (Pro Hac Vice) 2 Email: sandra.wickmulvany@dentons.com DENTONS US LLP 3 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 4 Telephone: (303) 634-4000 Facsimile: (303) 634-4400 5 ALEXANDRA B. MCLEOD (SBN 8185) 6 Email: abm@thorndal.com THORNDAL ARMSTRONG DELK 7 BALKENBUSH & EISINGER 1100 E. Bridger Avenue 8 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 366-0622 9 Facsimile: (702) 366-0327 10 Attorneys for Defendant National Security Technologies, LLC 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 EAGLE ROCK CONTRACTING, LLC, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01278-GMN (NJK) 14 DEFENDANT NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF ITS TWO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request) 15 Plaintiff, v. 16 NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Defendant, 20 National Security Technologies, LLC (“NSTec”), respectfully files its unopposed motion seeking 21 an enlargement of time of ten days, up to and including Thursday, March 3, 2016, in which to 22 submit its reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff, Eagle Rock 23 Contracting, LLC’s (“ERC”), Claims filed on January 11, 2016 at ECF No. 81, and its reply in 24 support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTec’s Counterclaims filed on January 11, 25 2016 at ECF No. 82 (collectively, the “Replies”). 26 Counsel for NSTec conferred with counsel for ERC regarding the relief requested in this 27 motion and has been authorized to represent to the Court that ERC does not oppose NSTec’s 28 Case 2:14-cv-01278-GMN-NJK Document 92 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 4 1 requested extension. 2 NSTec filed both the Motion for Summary Judgment on ERC’s Claims and the Motion for 3 Summary Judgment on NSTec’s Counterclaims (collectively, the “Motions for Summary 4 Judgment”) on January 11, 2016. See ECF No. 81 and 82, respectively. Yesterday, on February 5 4, 2016, ERC filed its Oppositions to the Motions for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 87 and 6 88. Accordingly, NSTec’s Replies for the Motions for Summary Judgment are currently due on 7 February 22, 2016. See LR 7-2(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) and (d). 8 An unexpired deadline may be extended upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 6(b)(1)(A). Here, good cause exists for NSTec’s requested ten-day extension of time to file its 10 Replies. Specifically, NSTec’s in-house counsel, who has been working on this case since its 11 inception, will be traveling out of the country and unavailable beginning this coming weekend and 12 is not scheduled to return to the United States until February 24, 2016, which is after the 13 February 22, 2016 deadline for NSTec to file its Replies. NSTec therefore seeks additional time 14 to allow for its in-house counsel to provide input on the Replies before they are filed with the 15 Court. NSTec is seeking an extension now, well before the deadline for filing its Replies, based 16 on these circumstances. See id. 17 NSTec has neither requested nor been granted any other enlargement of time to file its 18 Replies. Further, if granted, the requested enlargement of time for the Replies would not prejudice 19 any party, delay any scheduled deadline in this case, or otherwise cause any undue hardship to the 20 parties in this matter. No trial date has been set and there are no other pending deadlines in this 21 case that would be impacted by the granting of NSTec’s requested extension. 22 WHEREFORE, NSTec respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting it an 23 enlargement of time, up to and including Thursday, March 3, 2016, in which to file each of its 24 Replies, specifically its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on ERC’s Claims 25 (ECF No. 81), and its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTec’s 26 Counterclaims (ECF No. 82). 27 28 2 Case 2:14-cv-01278-GMN-NJK Document 92 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 4 1 Dated: February 5, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 2 DENTONS US LLP 3 By: /s/Sandra B. Wick Mulvany Sandra B. Wick Mulvany 4 Counsel for Defendant, National Security Technologies, LLC 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED: 9 ______________________________ United States District Judge 10 11 17 Dated: February ___, 2016. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case 2:14-cv-01278-GMN-NJK Document 92 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 4 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that, on this 5th day of February, 2016, a true and correct copy of the 3 foregoing DEFENDANT NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S 4 UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR 5 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF ITS TWO 6 MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (First Request) was electronically filed with the 7 Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 8 following individual at the following electronic mail address: 9 10 Timothy P. Thomas at tthomas@tthomaslaw.com. Executed on February 5, 2016, in Denver, Colorado. I declare under penalty of perjury 11 under the laws of the State of Colorado that the above is true and correct. 12 13 14 /s/Sandra B. Wick Mulvany DN 32298753.1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?