Trost v. Cox et al
Filing
177
ORDER granting ECF No. 176 Stipulation for extension of time to respond to ECF No. 166 Motion to Compel. Defendants' response due 12/8/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 12/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
Case 3:14-cv-00611-MMD-WGC Document 176 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Nevada Attorney General
ERIN L. ALBRIGHT #9953
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 No. Carson St.
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: 775-684-1257
E-Mail: ealbright@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca,
Dwayne Baze, Robert Bannister, Barbara Cegavske,
Travis Bennett, Stephen Daniels, James Dzurenda,
Travis Fratis, Aaron Harroun, Daniel Henson,
Christopher Jones, Adam Laxalt, Valaree Olivas,
Brian Sandoval, Robert Schofield, Holly Skulstad,
Ronald Waldo, Vernon White, and
State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Prison Commissioners
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
14
ROY TROST aka DAISY MEADOWS,
15
Case No. 3:14-cv-00611-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE
THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND COSTS (ECF NO. 166) (SECOND
REQUEST)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Dwayne Baze, Robert Bannister, Barbara Cegavske,
20
Travis Bennett, Stephen Daniels, James Dzurenda, Travis Fratis, Aaron Harroun, Daniel Henson,
21
Christopher Jones, Adam Laxalt, Valaree Olivas, Brian Sandoval, Robert Schofield, Holly Skulstad,
22
Ronald Waldo, Vernon White and State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Prison Commissioners (collectively,
23
the “Defendants”) by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, and Erin L.
24
Albright, Deputy Attorney General, and Plaintiff, Roy Trost aka Daisy Meadows, by and through
25
counsel, Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq., hereby stipulate to enlarge the time for Defendants to respond to
26
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and For Attorney’s Fees and Costs
27
(ECF No. 166) to December 8, 2017. The extension is sought because the parties will be discussing the
28
motion to compel on November 30, 2017 in an attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery issues
1
Case 3:14-cv-00611-MMD-WGC Document 176 Filed 11/30/17 Page 2 of 3
1
presented in Plaintiff’s motion. Due to the fact that the parties are attempting to address the outstanding
2
discovery issues, the parties have agreed to further extend the date the time for Defendants to respond to
3
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 166).
4
DATED this 30th day of November 2017.
DATED this 30th day of November 2017.
MCLETCHIE SHELL LLC
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Margaret A. McLetchie
Margaret A. McLetchie, SBN 10931
701 E. Bridger Ave., Suite 520
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 728-5300
maggie@nvlitigation.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Roy Trost aka Daisy Meadows
By: ___________________________
Erin L. Albright, SBN 9953
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
(775) 684-1257
ealbright@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ORDER
15
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Extend the Time for
16
Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Requests for Production and for
17
Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 166). The Court has examined the Stipulation as agreed by the
18
parties to this stipulation and good cause having been shown,
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants are granted until December 8, 2017 to respond
20
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Requests for Production and for Attorney’s Fees and
21
Costs (ECF No. 166).
22
23
24
25
26
DATED this _____ day of _________________ 2017.
DATED: December l, 2017.
___________________________________
___________________________________
DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
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?