Smith v. Baker et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting in part 95 Motion to Extend Time; Re: 93 Motion to Strike, 85 Motion for Hearing Before District Judge, 86 Motion. Replies to 85 and 86 Motions due by 5/28/2020. Responses to 93 Motion to Strike due by 5/28/2020. Replies to 93 Motion to Strike due by 6/11/2020. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/19/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:15-cv-00487-KJD-VCF Document 96 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MONTRAIL D. SMITH,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00487-KJD-VCF

Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
Respondents.

11
12
13

In this habeas corpus action, the parties have fully briefed a motion to dismiss

14

(ECF Nos. 72, 82, 91), and the parties are in the process of briefing a related motion for

15

leave to conduct discovery (ECF Nos. 86, 92), motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos.

16

85, 94), and motion to strike (ECF No. 93).

17

Petitioner Montrail D. Smith’s replies in support of his motion for leave to conduct

18

discovery and motion for evidentiary hearing are due May 28, 2020. See Order entered

19

April 24, 2019 (ECF No. 68) (20 days for replies regarding such motions). Smith’s

20

response to Respondents’ motion to strike is due May 22, 2020. See LR 7-2(b).

21

On May 15, 2020, Smith filed a motion for extension of time, requesting that all

22

three of his upcoming filings be made due on the same date; apparently overlooking the

23

provision regarding the briefing of motions for leave to conduct discovery and for

24

evidentiary hearings in the April 24, 2019 scheduling order, and believing those two

25

filings to be due on May 15, 2020, Smith asked for an extension to May 22, 2020, for all

26

three filings.

27

The Court finds that Smith’s motion is made in good faith and not solely for the

28

purpose of delay, and that there is good cause to order all three of Smith’s upcoming
1

Case 2:15-cv-00487-KJD-VCF Document 96 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

1

filings due on the same date, the Court will grant Smith’s motion in part and deny it in

2

part (as unnecessary) and extend to May 28, 2020, the deadline for his response to the

3

motion to strike. The Court will set June 11, 2020, as the deadline for Respondents’

4

reply in support of their motion to strike. The Court will not look favorably upon any

5

motion to further extend this briefing schedule.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time

7

(ECF No. 95) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Petitioner’s response to

8

Respondents’ motion to strike will be due on May 28, 2020, along with his replies in

9

support of his motion for leave to conduct discovery and his motion for evidentiary

10

hearing. Respondents’ reply in support of their motion to strike will be due on

11

June 11, 2020.

12
13

19
May
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2020.

14
15
KENT J. DAWSON,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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