Peters v. Cox et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting ECF No. 68 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 67 Objection/Appeal Magistrate Judge Order/Ruling LR IB 3-1. Response due by 3/15/2018. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:15-cv-00472-RCJ-VPC Document 68 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 3

6

ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
HEATHER B. ZANA, Bar No. 8734
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendant Gaylene Fukagawa

1
2
3
4
5

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

RICHARD PETERS,

12

Case No. 3:15-cv-00472-RCJ-VPC
Plaintiff,

13
14

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE (#62, 01/12/18)
(FIRST REQUEST)
(ECF NO. 67)

v.
GREG COX, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Defendant Gaylene Fukagawa, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of

17

the State of Nevada, and Heather B. Zana, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an

18

order enlarging the time to respond to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Order of Magistrate (#62, 01/12/18)

19

(ECF No. 67). This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. Proc.”)

20

6(b) and is based upon the following Points and Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein.

21

This Motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay.

22
23

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

24

NATURE OF MOTION
The Defendants submit there is good cause to enlarge the time for Defendants’ Response to

25

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Order of Magistrate (#62, 01/12/18) (ECF No. 67) to March 15, 2018.

26

II.

27
28

ARGUMENT
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) grants this Court discretion to enlarge the period of time in which an act is

to be done. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(b) provides in pertinent part:
1

Case 3:15-cv-00472-RCJ-VPC Document 68 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 3

When by these rules . . . or by order of court an act is required or allowed
to be done at or within a specified time, the court for good cause extend
the time on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.

1
2
3
4

The time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Order of Magistrate (#62,

5

01/12/18) (ECF No. 67) has not expired. The request for enlargement is timely because defense

6

counsel is defending multiple depositions, preparing for trial in another matter, and finalizing a

7

settlement conference statement in another matter. This is the Defendants’ first request for enlargement

8

of time with respect to responding to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Order of Magistrate (#62, 01/12/18)

9

(ECF No. 67). This request for enlargement of time is made in good faith and not for the purpose of

10

delay.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

Based on the foregoing the Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should grant the

13

Defendants’ motion and enter an Order enlarging the time to respond to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Order

14

of Magistrate (#62, 01/12/18) (ECF No. 67) to March 15, 2018.

15
16

DATED this 21st day of February 2018.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General

17
18

By:

20

HEATHER B. ZANA
Deputy Attorney General
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division

21

Attorneys for Defendant Gaylene Fukagawa

19

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2018.

24
25
26

______________________________
ROBERT C. JONES

27
28
2