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)
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?