Carley v. Gentry et al

Filing 176

ORDER Granting 175 Stipulation to Extend the Joint Pretrial Order Deadline. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/28/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/30/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 176 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 4

LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7491
THE LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD
& ASSOCIATES
550 E. Charleston Blvd., Suite A
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Elizabeth Carley
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS (Bar No. 3572)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
100 N. Carson Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89701-4717
[phone] (phone)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Charles Daniels,
Sheryl Foster, Jo Gentry, Tanya Hill, Gabriela Najera,
Dwight Neven, Cynthia Ruiz, Kim Thomas, and Patrick Vejar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ELIZABETH CARLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEVEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND THE JOINT PRETRIAL
ORDER DEADLINE FROM AUGUST 29,
2022, TO SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
(Fourth Request)

Plaintiff ELIZABETH CARLEY, by and through her counsel of record, Lisa A.
Rasmussen, Esq. of The Law Offices of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates, and Defendants,
SHERYL FOSTER, PATRICK VEJAR, JO GENTRY, JAMES DZURENDA, CHARLES
DANIELS, GABRIELA NAJERA, TANYA HILL, DWIGHT NEVEN, CYNTHIA RUIZ, by

-1-

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 176 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 4

through their counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior
Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby submit
a Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend the Joint Pretrial Order Deadline from August 29, 2022
to September 28, 2022.
I.

INTRODUCTION
The Parties hereby move to extend the Joint Pretrial Order deadline from August 29, 2022

to September 28, 2022 (30 days). Good cause exists in this case because the Parties have
continued discussions and may be able to resolve this matter without further litigation.
Additionally, during recent preparations for Joint Pretrial Order, Plaintiff’s counsel discovered
that many of the thousands of pages of documents originally produced by the State directly to Ms.
Carley at earlier stages of the litigation were missing or lost, primarily due to Ms. Carley’s
changes in custody location and issues concerning her ability to make copies while incarcerated.
The State’s counsel has agreed to provide a full set of discovery documents produced by the State
in electronic format. The Parties agree that additional time is necessary to review the discovery
records produced in this matter to submit a Joint Pretrial Order.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides:
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may,
for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before
the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). 1

1

LR IA 6-1(a) provided that “[a] motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for
the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject
deadline the court granted.” Further, a “stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an
-2-

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 176 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 4

The United States Supreme Court has recognized, “Rule 6(b) gives the court extensive
flexibility to modify the fixed time periods found throughout the rules, whether the enlargement
is sought before or after the actual termination of the allotted time.” 2 Further, this rule is to be
liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases, and other disputed
issues, are decided on the merits. 3 Regarding “Good cause,” it is a non-rigorous standard that has
been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 4 Consequently, requests for
extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted
in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse
party.” 5
III.

ARGUMENT
After some delays based on miscommunications as to the identify of the attorney

representing the State, the Parties met and conferred about the status of the case. The Parties
discussed settlement, and an offer by Plaintiff has been presented to and is now being considered
by the State. The Parties also discussed the fact that many of the several thousands of pages of
records provided by the State in disclosures and discovery responses were missing from the
documents in Plaintiff’s possession. This situation appears to be the result of restrictions on

opposition or reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion, must state in its
opening paragraph the filing date of the subject motion or the date of the subject hearing.” LR IA
6-1(c).
2

Lujan v. Na t’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 906 n. 7 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted) (emphasis added); see also Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 868
F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) (citing and quoting Lujan, 497 U.S. at 906).
3

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010).

4

Id. (citing Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 187 (1st Cir.2004), Thomas
v. Brennan, 961 F.2d 612, 619 (7th Cir.1992), Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 954
(4th Cir.1987)).

5

Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1259 (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)).

-3-

Case 2:17-cv-02670-MMD-VCF Document 176 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 4

Plaintiff’s ability to make copies while in custody as well as documents being lost during Plaintiff
move into transitional housing. State’s counsel has agreed to provide Plaintiff’s counsel with a
complete copy of all discovery provided by the State in electronic format.
The Parties do not act in bad faith. They are evaluating the issues and settlement possibility
in good faith. The Parties seek the additional time to work together to draft the Joint Pretrial
Order. They are working together to resolve the issue of the discovery documents, and determine
precisely which documents will be appropriate and necessary for trial. The additional time is
necessary for the drafting and agreement to a joint order, and also to further settlement
discussions. Therefore, Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial Order from August 29,
2022 to September 28, 2022.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties request an extension of the Joint Pretrial Order

deadline from August 29, 2022 to September 28, 2022.
DATED this 29th day of August, 2022.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2022.

THE LAW OFFICES OF KRISTINA WILDEVELD
& ASSOCIATES,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Lisa A. Rasmussen
LISA A. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. (NV Bar 7491)
550 E. Charleston Blvd, Ste. A
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Elizabeth Carley

By: /s/
DOUGLAS R. RANDS (NV Bar 3572)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED:

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:
-4-

8-30-2022