Hines v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 53 Unopposed Motion; Motions due by 8/26/2021. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/27/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/14/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK Document 53 Filed 07/13/21 Page 1 of 6

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
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Darren Spiece

8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

TONY HINES,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

16

Case No. 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINE
(FIRST REQUEST)

Defendants.

17

Defendant, Darren Spiece, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney

18

General, and Katlyn M. Brady, Senior Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada,

19

Office of the Attorney General, requests this Court grant a 45-day extension of the

20

dispositive motion deadline.

21

I.

INTRODUCTION

22

Defendant respectfully requests this Court extend the deadline to file a dispositive

23

motion from July 12, 2021, to August 26, 2021. Good cause supports this extension as

24

counsel has another dispositive motion due today1 and was recently tasked with creating a

25

new litigation team within the Public Safety Division—Nevada Department of Corrections

26

(NDOC). Counsel is the current team leader of said litigation team, bearing primary case

27

assignment responsibility over all cases previously assigned to both her and her (4) Deputy

28

30

1

Case number 2:19-cv-00721-RFB-DJA

Page 1 of 6

Case 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK Document 53 Filed 07/13/21 Page 2 of 6

1

Attorney Generals (DAG). With the exception of one DAG, who is currently on leave until

2

August 1, 2021, the three (3) DAGs are new to practice and/or new to civil litigation. In

3

addition, Plaintiff needs additional time for dispositive motions as Plaintiff’s motion to

4

amend was recently denied. Accordingly, the parties have agreed to a 45-day extension to

5

draft the dispositive motions as the parties have agreed that it is beneficial to both parties.

6

II.

BACKGROUND

7

This matter is based upon Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Spiece violated Plaintiff’s

8

rights by failing to provide an adequate description of the confidential information used

9

during a disciplinary hearing. ECF No. 17 at 11:16-19. Plaintiff further claims Defendant

10

did not verify the credibility of the confidential information. Id.

11

Following the opening of discovery, the parties engaged in discovery that ultimately

12

resulted in Plaintiff filing a motion to compel. ECF No. 44. This Court then denied the

13

motion. ECF No. 51.

14
15

Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend the Complaint. ECF No. 36. Following briefing,
this Court recently denied the motion to amend. ECF No. 52.

16

On July 12, 2021, due to an emergency of the undersigned counsel, DAG Amy A.

17

Porray conducted a meet and confer with Plaintiff to discuss the dispositive motion

18

deadline. See Declaration of Attorney Porray, Exhibit A. DAG Porray explained that

19

counsel had a second dispositive motion due July 12, 2021, and was tasked with creating a

20

new inmate litigation team for the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. DAG Porray

21

requested Plaintiff consent to a 45-day extension of time for the dispositive motion

22

deadline. DAG Porray explained why she was covering the meet and confer for counsel and

23

the purpose thereof. She also explained why the Attorney General was unable to give

24

Plaintiff advance notice of the telephone conference, as Plaintiff requested an answer to

25

the same. Id.

26

DAG Porray explained what a dispositive motion was, and explained what the effect

27

of an unopposed motion was. Plaintiff further agreed Defendant could title his motion as

28

unopposed to reflect this agreement. Plaintiff readily agreed to the extension as he

30

Page 2 of 6

Case 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK Document 53 Filed 07/13/21 Page 3 of 6

1

explained he also needed additional time to complete a dispositive motion. Plaintiff was

2

appreciative that counsel would file the unopposed motion. His only request was that a

3

scheduling order with the date for dispositive motions be included. DAG Porray informed

4

Plaintiff of the contents of an unopposed motion and that it would necessarily include the

5

date. Id.

6

III.

7
8

LEGAL ARGUMENT
Motions to enlarge time are governed by FED R. CIV. PROC. 6(b) and Nevada Local Court

Rule 26-32 and 26-6:

9

(b) Extending Time.

10

(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

11
(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

12
13

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed
to act because of excusable neglect.[3]

14
15

and

16

LR 26-3. EXTENSION OF SCHEDULED DEADLINES
A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the
discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition
to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a
showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation
to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be
received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration
of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the
subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.
A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will
not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the
failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. A motion or
stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery
must include:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed;

24

(b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to
be completed;

25
26
27

2

28

On April 17, 2020, the Federal District Court of Nevada amended the Local Rules.
This motion cites to the most recent version.
3
FED R. CIV. PROC. 6(b)

30

Page 3 of 6

Case 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK Document 53 Filed 07/13/21 Page 4 of 6

1

(c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the
remaining discovery was not completed within the time
limits set by the discovery plan; and
(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining
discovery.[4]

2
3
4

Defendant provides the following information in compliance with LR 26-3.

5

A.

6

To date, the following discovery has been completed: Plaintiff’s First Set of

7

Interrogatories to Defendant Darren Spiece and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of

8

Documents to Defendant Darren Spiece.

9

B.

Statement Of Completed Discovery

A Description Of Discovery That Remains To Be Completed

10

There is no remaining discovery to be completed.

11

C.

12

Defendant was unable to complete the dispositive motion for the following reasons:

13

(1) counsel had another dispositive motion due the same day, (2) the OAG is in the middle

14

of a major restructuring and counsel is tasked with the creation of this new litigation team

15

and (3) counsel has been covering for another attorney that was out of the office with a

16

medical emergency. Further, Plaintiff indicated he needs additional time to complete his

17

own dispositive motion and thus consented to the extension.

The Reasons For The Extension Request

18

D.

19

Dispositive Motion Deadline

August 26, 2021

20

Joint Pretrial order

September 27, 20215

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

The Proposed New Deadlines

///

27
28

30

26-3
Nevada Local Court Rules 26-4
This deadline is suspended if dispositive motions are filed. The joint pretrial order
is due 30 days after a ruling on the dispositive motions.or further court order.
4
5

Page 4 of 6

Case 2:18-cv-02373-JAD-NJK Document 53 Filed 07/13/21 Page 5 of 6

1
2
3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION
The parties respectfully request an extension of 45 days to allow for the completion

of the dispositive motion deadline.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2021.

5

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

6
By: /s/ Katlyn M. Brady
KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173)
Senior Deputy Attorney General

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
9
10
11
12
13

This stipulation was filed after the expiration of the subject deadline and, therefore, requires a
showing of excusable neglect in addition to good cause. Counsel for Defendant fails to
address, let alone establish, excusable neglect. Further, work on other cases or establishing a
litigation unit does not constitute good cause. Nonetheless, as a one-time courtesy to the
parties, the Court will GRANT this stipulation. Counsel must strictly comply with all rules
and case law.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: July 14, 2021

16
17

_____________________
Nancy J. Koppe
U.S. Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30

Page 5 of 6