Brothers v. Neven et al

Filing 72

ORDER Granting 71 Unopposed Motion to Extend time. Motions due by 1/8/2021. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/8/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 1/6/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 71 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 5 72 01/06/21 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AARON D. FORD Attorney General KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-0661 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: katlynbrady@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendant Dwight Neven And Romeo Aranas 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 TERRANCE D. BROTHERS, 15 Case No. 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Plaintiff, 16 vs. 17 DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., 18 DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST) Defendants. 19 20 Defendants Dwight Neven and Romeo Aranas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. 21 Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and Katlyn M. Brady, Senior Deputy 22 Attorney General, request this Court grant Defendants’ unopposed motion to extend the 23 dispositive motion deadline from January 8, 2021, to February 8, 2021. 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the dispositive motion deadline 26 from January 8, 2021, to February 8, 2021. Good cause exists to extend the dispositive 27 motion deadline because Defendants’ counsel has a dispositive motion due in another 28 matter on January 8, 2021. Despite working on both motions, counsel is unable to complete 30 Page 1 of 5 Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 71 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 5 72 01/06/21 4 1 both motions for summary judgment on January 8, 2021. Further, this motion is unopposed 2 and there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff by granting this request. 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil right complaint. ECF No. 1-1. On Mach 3, 2018, 5 this Court issued a screening order that dismissed the Complaint without prejudice based on 6 Plaintiff’s failure to adequately allege a claim. ECF No. 3 at 6:19-28. 7 On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 5. On 8 February 7, 2019, this Court issued a screening order on the Second Amended Complaint. 9 ECF No. 6. This Court allowed a single claim for deliberate indifference to proceed against 10 Warden Neven and former Medical Director Romeo Aranas. Id. at 8:24-27. However, this 11 Court dismissed Warden Brian Williams from the First Amended Complaint. Id. at 9:1-3. 12 On July 10, 2019, Warden Neven1 moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. 13 ECF No. 19. On January 15, 2020, this Court granted Warden Neven’s motion to dismiss in 14 its entirety and dismissed Warden Neven from this action. ECF No. 46.2 However, this Court 15 granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Id. 16 17 18 19 On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Filed the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff re-alleged the allegations against Warden Neven. See id. The parties then proceeded to discovery on the remaining claims. Discovery has since closed in this matter. 20 On December 30, 2020, counsel and Plaintiff engaged in a telephonic meet and confer 21 to discuss this matter. Declaration of counsel attached as Exhibit A. During the phone call, 22 counsel explained that she was unable to complete the dispositive motion deadline in this 23 matter, as she had a second motion for summary judgment due in another case on the same 24 day.3 Id. Plaintiff agreed to provide a thirty (30) day extension. Further, Plaintiff agreed that 25 Defendants could title the motion to extend as unopposed. Id. 26 27 28 30 1 2 Dr. Aranas was not served until after Warden Neven filed the motion to dismiss. The order was titled Screening Order on Amended Complaint. ECF No. 46. However, the text of the order demonstrates it is a ruling on the motion to dismiss and not a screening order. See id. at 1:15-17 (noting the Court is deciding a motion to dismiss). 3 The other matter is case no: 2:19-cv-00326-JAD-BNW. Page 2 of 5 Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 71 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 5 72 01/06/21 4 1 2 3 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT Defendants provide the following information in accordance with Local Rule 26-4. A. Discovery Completed 4 The parties have completed the following discovery to date: 5 Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents. 6 Plaintiff’s First Set of Admissions to Romeo Aranas. 7 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Aranas. 8 Defendants’ Initial Disclosures. 9 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Dwight Neven. 10 Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. 11 Defendants’ First Request for Admission to Dwight Neven. 12 B. 13 No additional discovery is needed in this matter. The remaining case management 14 Discovery That Remains To Be Completed deadlines are: 15 Dispositive motion deadline: January 8, 2021 16 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): February 8, 2021 17 C. 18 The dispositive motion deadline was not completed for two primary reasons. First, 19 counsel has a second motion for summary judgment due on January 8, 2021. Although 20 counsel has attempted to work on both motions, counsel was unable to complete the 21 dispositive motion in this matter. Reasons Why The Deadlines Were Not Satisfied 22 Second, counsel has suffered several technological difficulties that have prevented 23 her from completing both motions. Namely, counsel was erroneously locked out of her work 24 station for several days, due to a credential issue. Further, the remote network required to 25 access case files has experienced significant volatility, which severely affects counsel’s 26 ability to access any case files. Despite working on the weekends, in the hopes that the 27 network would be more stable due to a decrease in traffic, counsel has been unable to 28 complete the dispositive motion deadline in this matter. 30 Page 3 of 5 Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 71 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 5 72 01/06/21 4 1 D. 2 Dispositive motion deadline February 8, 2021 3 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): March 10, 2021 4 E. 5 Good cause supports granting this unopposed request to extend the dispositive 6 motion deadline. Due to counsel’s caseload, and numerous technological issues, counsel has 7 been unable to complete the dipositive motion deadline in this matter. It is currently 8 unknown, when, or if, the technological issues will be resolved. Thus, despite having an 9 initial draft, counsel seeks this extension to ensure the motion for summary judgment is 10 Proposed Deadlines Good Cause Supports The Request completed. This Motion is brought in good faith and not to cause unnecessary delay. 11 Further, there will be no prejudice in granting this extension. Counsel confirmed 12 that Plaintiff does not oppose this extension. As there is no trial date, this extension will 13 not require an extension of any trial deadlines. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Defendants respectfully request an extension to complete the dispositive motion 16 deadline. The parties have agreed to this extension due to counsel’s workload and the 17 significant technological issues caused by remote access. 18 DATED this 4th day of January, 2021. 19 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 20 21 By: /s/ Katlyn M. Brady KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173) Senior Deputy Attorney General 22 23 Attorneys for Defendants 24 IT IS SO ORDERED 25 DATED: 12:34 pm, January 06, 2021 26 27 28 30 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 4 of 5

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?