Parkes v. Cox et al

Filing 71

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 7/8/2014, denying Defendants' 70 Motion to Strike. Defendants' reply re 66 Motion for Summary Judgment due 7/22/2014. Defendants' opposition to 69 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment due 7/22/2014. Plaintiff's reply re 69 Cross-Motion due 8/5/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ROBERT E. PARKES

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREG COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:11-cv-00902-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
July 8, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 69), or in the alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 69). (Doc. # 70.)
Defendants contend that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was June 6,
2014, and Defendants filed their dispositive motion on that date. (Doc. # 70 at 2, referencing
Scheduling Order (Doc. # 65) and Defendants' Motion (Doc. # 66).) They assert that Plaintiff filed
his cross-motion for summary judgment on June 30, 2014, without seeking an extension of the
deadline to file such a motion. (Doc. # 70 at 2.) Therefore, Defendants contend the cross-motion
should be stricken, or they should be given an extension of time of fourteen days to file their
response. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff's filing was titled both a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment as
well as his cross-motion for summary judgment. It was filed as a single document by Plaintiff, but
docketed as two separate filings ((1) response to Defendants' motion (Doc. # 68) and (2) crossmotion for summary judgment (Doc. # 69)) by the Clerk's office. The documents are identical. The
cross-motion was technically filed beyond the June 6, 2014 deadline for filing dispositive motions;
however, the document was timely filed as a response to Defendants' dispositive motion. The court
will afford Plaintiff, a pro se inmate litigant, some latitude in this respect, particularly because the
documents are identical and as such Defendants will not be prejudiced in having to respond to both
the opposition and cross-motion. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. # 70) is DENIED.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:11-cv-00902-LRH-WGC
Date: July 8, 2014
Page 2
Defendants have up to and including July 22, 2014 to file both their reply in support of their motion
for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff
shall then have up to and including August 5, 2014 to file his reply in support of his cross-motion
for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk