Olsen v. LeGrand et al

Filing 59

ORDERED that Respondents' motion to extend time (ECF No. 58 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Respondents have until February 3, 2020, to file the exhibits. Petitioner will have 14 days after service of the exhibits to file and serve any response to the motion to dismiss. All other instructions stated in the scheduling order (ECF No. 33 ) and the warning regarding further extensions (ECF No. 55 ) remain in effect. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/29/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CARL HENRY OLSEN, III,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00367-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

7
v.

8
9

RENE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

10

This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents’ fourth Unopposed Motion

11
12

ORDER

to Extend Time (ECF No. 58). 1

13

Respondents seek a one-week extension of time to file the exhibits to their Motion

14

to Dismiss (ECF No. 56) Petitioner Carl Henry Olsen, III’s Second Amended Petition for

15

Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 45). The motion states that extensive redaction is

16

required because Petitioner’s criminal case involved a minor victim and witness.

17

Respondents’ counsel asserts that the redaction process has taken longer than expected,

18

despite best efforts, because the records were obtained from microfiche and are not of

19

sufficient quality to allow for automated redaction.

20

The motion falls short of providing compelling circumstances or a strong showing

21

of good cause given that this action was reopened in July 2017 and the second amended

22

petition was filed over eight months ago in May 2019. Nevertheless, the Court will

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

1In

the order granting Respondents’ third request for an extension of time, counsel
was advised:
Given the Court’s case management responsibilities under the CJRA,
moving forward counsel will be required to prioritize the briefing in this case
over later-filed matters. . .. Further extensions of time are not likely to
be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of
good cause why the briefing could not be completed within the
extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.
(ECF No. 55.)

1

reluctantly allow an additional three days. The parties are advised that the Court’s warning

2

regarding further extensions remains in effect. (ECF No. 55.)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ motion is granted in part and denied in
part. Respondents have until February 3, 2020, to file the exhibits.
It is further ordered that Petitioner will have 14 days after service of the exhibits to
file and serve any response to the motion to dismiss.
All other instructions stated in the scheduling order (ECF No. 33) and the warning
regarding further extensions (ECF No. 55) remain in effect.
DATED THIS 29th day of January 2020.

10
11
12
13

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2