Peters v. Baca et al
Filing
31
ORDER granting 30 Motion to Extend Dispositive Motions Deadline; Motions due by 1/11/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C)
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 East Washington Avenue
Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 486-4070 (phone)
(702) 486-3773 (fax)
Email: ajsmith@ag.nv.gov
7
8
Attorneys for Defendants
Isidro Baca, Andrei Antonov,
and John Coleman
9
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
14
RICHARD W. PETERS,
15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
18
Defendants.
Case No. 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE
MOTIONS DEADLINE ONLY TO
ONLY TO JANUARY 11, 2021
JANUARY 11, 2021
(SECOND REQUEST)
(SECOND REQUEST)
19
20
Defendants, Isidro Baca, Andrei Antonov, and John Coleman (collectively NDOC
21
Employees), by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and
22
Alexander J. Smith, Deputy Attorney General (DAG Smith), of the State of Nevada, Office
23
of the Attorney General, hereby move a second time to extend by ninety days the dispositive
24
motions deadline only to January 11, 2021. At 2:00 P.M. on October 14, 2020, counsel for
25
Defendants met and conferred via telephone with Plaintiff to discuss this second motion to
26
extend the deadline to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff stated that this motion is
27
unopposed.
28
///
30
Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 7
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
BACKGROUND
3
A July 14, 2020 order grants (ECF No. 25) Plaintiff Richard W. Peters’s (Peters)
4
second motion for an extension of time and extends the dispositive motions deadline to
5
October 12, 2020. Because new counsel for NDOC Employees was recently appointed to
6
this case, NDOC Employees respectfully request an extension of time of ninety days to file
7
dispositive motions; good cause and excusable neglect exists to extend the dispositive
8
motions deadline to January 11, 2021.
9
On October 12, 2020, Defendants moved (ECF No. 28) a first time to extend the
10
dispositive motions deadline for the reasons stated below. An October 13, 2020 order
11
(ECF. No. 28) denies the motion because counsel failed to meet and confer before moving
12
for an extension.
13
II.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
14
A.
15
Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs extensions of time and states:
16
Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
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.
17
18
19
20
After a deadline has passed, Rule 6 requires a showing of both “good cause” and
21
“excusable neglect.” Brosted v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 421 F.3d 459, 464 (7th Cir. 2009).
22
Under Rule 6, good cause is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have construed the
23
test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). Excusable neglect
24
requires “a demonstration of good faith . . . and some reasonable basis for noncompliance
25
within the specified period of time.” Petrocelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1312
26
(3rd Cir. 1995). Whether neglect is excusable, so as to allow an extension of time, is an
27
equitable determination. Hawks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 591 F.3d 1043, 1048 (8th Cir.
28
///
30
Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 7
1
2010) (determination as to what sort of neglect is considered excusable is an equitable one,
2
taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding a party’s omission).
3
In adjudicating excusable neglect, a court must take into account all relevant
4
circumstances, including (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of
5
the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay,
6
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the moving party; and (4) whether
7
the moving party acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.
8
P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
9
Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing
10
that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong
11
v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts
12
should not mindlessly enforce deadlines.”) The excusable neglect doctrine exists to prevent
13
a victory by default. Newgen, LLC. v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016)
14
(observing that it is “the general rule that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored). An
15
action should be decided on its merits and not on technicality. Rodriguez v. Village Green
16
Realty, LLC, 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d. Cir. 2015) (citing Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum &
17
Transp. Corp., 334 F. Supp. 2d 197, 247 (NDNY 2014) and observing that there is a strong
18
preference for resolving disputes on the merits). See generally 1 Moore’s Federal Practice,
19
§6.06[3] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.).
20
B.
21
LR IA 6-1 requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the
22
extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified
23
period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the
24
deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to
25
extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as
26
satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and
27
such a motion filed after the expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the
28
movant demonstrates that the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.
30
Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-3
Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 7
1
Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion
2
to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery: (a) a statement specifying the
3
discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;
4
(c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not
5
completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for
6
completing all remaining discovery.
7
C.
8
Good Cause and Excusable Neglect Exist, Thus an Order Should
Grant NDOC Employees’ Motion for an Extension of the Dispositive
Motions Deadline
9
Here, good cause exists for extending the dispositive motions deadline by ninety days
10
from October 12, 2020, to January 11, 2021. NDOC Employees intend to move for summary
11
judgment and will raise a qualified immunity defense and argue that no constitutional
12
violations occurred. By extending the deadline from October 12, 2020, Peters is under no
13
danger of prejudice, and the delay is short (counsel understands that the Office of the
14
Attorney General should have moved for an extension of time more than twenty-one days
15
before the dispositive motion deadline is due, but for reasons outlined below, this did not
16
happen)—counsel for NDOC Employees, Deputy Attorney General Alexander J. Smith
17
(DAG Smith), apologizes for moving a first time on the deadline date and for moving a
18
second time several days after the deadline but reassures the court that Defendants act in
19
the utmost good faith and that the extension sought will not impact negatively on judicial
20
proceedings.1
21
DAG Smith started with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office approximately a
22
month ago and was only recently admitted to the Federal District Court. Upon
23
commencement of his employment, DAG Smith became counsel of record for the defense in
24
approximately forty actions and has worked assiduously and expeditiously to review each
25
26
27
28
30
1
Defendants have always acted in good faith and moved (ECF No. 28) for an
extension before the expiration of the deadline; while counsel for Defendants concedes that
he should have attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff before the date of the dispositive
motions deadline, he did state in the motion that he made a good faith effort to meet and
confer with Peters that same day and that he would attempt again to arrange something
later in the week and supplement that motion with the results of the meet and confer.
(ECF No. 28 at 2)
Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 7
1
case file. Only very recently, because of a previous calendar oversight that has since been
2
rectified, it transpired that the deadline to file dispositive motions was rapidly
3
approaching. DAG Smith moved (ECF No. 28) on the deadline date for an extension, but
4
an order (ECF No. 29) denied the motion without prejudice because of a failure to meet and
5
confer. DAG Smith hereby re-files that motion, which now incorporates an examination of
6
the excusable neglect standard because the second motion for an extension is filed several
7
days after the dispositive motions deadline.
8
Also, the previous attorney for NDOC Employees transitioned to his new role during
9
this time. Bearing in mind the numerous technological difficulties caused by the State of
10
Nevada moving to working from home because of the COVID-19 crisis, DAG Smith is
11
working diligently to defend this action. Soon after DAG Smith became aware of the
12
pending deadline dispositive motions deadline, he has worked tirelessly and in good faith
13
to review the docket in this action and to draft this and Defendants’ previous motion. In
14
sum, DAG Smith needs additional time in order to adequately brief the court for summary
15
judgment.
16
D.
17
The four factors contained within LR 26-3—(a) a statement specifying the discovery
18
completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the
19
reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed
20
within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing
21
all remaining discovery—are satisfied. NDOC Employees have completed discovery in this
22
action, and no further discovery is needed. The reasons why the deadline was not adhered
23
to are succinctly and thoroughly elaborated on at length in the preceding paragraphs. No
The Four Factors Contained Within LR 26-3 Are Satisfied2
24
25
26
27
28
30
2
LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered. Arguably, these apply only when a
party moves for an extension to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery; here,
NDOC Employees neither move to extend a discovery deadline nor move to reopen
discovery, but because a July 14, 2020 order (ECF No. 25) amends the April 13, 2020
Scheduling Order (Doc. 20), grants Peters’ second motion (ECF No. 25) for an extension of
time, and moves the dispositive motions deadline to October 12, 2020, out of an abundance
of caution, the factors contained within LR 26-3 are addressed in case the court decides
that the four-factor requirement contained within that rule applies in this instance.
Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00893-APG-NJK Document 30 Filed 10/15/20 Page 6 of 7
1
discovery remains, but NDOC Employees move to amend the Scheduling Order to extend
2
the dispositive motions deadline from October 12, 2020, to January 11, 2021.
3
E.
4
As outlined above, at 2:00 P.M. on October 14, 2020, counsel for Defendants met and
5
conferred via telephone with Plaintiff to discuss this second motion to extend the deadline
6
to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff stated that this motion is unopposed. (See Declaration
7
of Counsel for the Defendants: Exhibit A)
8
III.
Meet and Confer
CONCLUSION
9
NDOC Employees demonstrate good cause to extend the dispositive motions
10
deadline to January 11, 2021, and demonstrate excusable neglect for moving to extend the
11
dispositive motions deadline after the deadline itself. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.
12
Due to the nature of summary judgment and the time and complexity involved in
13
adequately briefing the court, and because the Ninth Circuit and other appellate courts
14
prefer to see that cases are tried on the merits and not on a technicality, NDOC Employees
15
respectfully request an extension of time from October 12, 2020, to January 11, 2021, to
16
file dispositive motions.
17
DATED this 15th day of October, 2020.
18
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
19
By: /s/ Alexander J. Smith
ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C)
Deputy Attorney General
20
21
Attorneys for Defendants
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2020
25
26
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
30
Page 6 of 7
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?