Wilkins v. Byrne et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting ECF No. 77 Defendants' motion for enlargement of time to serve responses/and or objections to Plaintiff's request for production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:16-cv-00249-MMD-WGC Document 77 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON, Bar No. 0632
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]
Attorneys for Defendants
Quentin Byrne, Tara Carpenter,
and Anthony Carrasco

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11

KENNETH WILKINS,

12

Case No. 3:16-cv-00249-MMD-WGC

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SERVE
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

vs.
BYRNE, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16

Defendants, Quentin Byrne, Tara Carpenter, and Anthony Carrasco, by and through counsel,

17

Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Benjamin R. Johnson, Deputy

18

Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an enlargement of time to serve their responses and/or

19

objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Interrogatories (Second Set).

20

following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all papers and pleadings on file herein.

21
22

This Motion is based on the

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23

Plaintiff Kenneth Wilkins served his untimely Request for Production of Documents on or about

24

January 8, 2018. Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2), a responding party must serve its answers and any

25

objections within thirty (30) days after being served with the interrogatories. Therefore, responses and/or

26

objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Interrogatories are due to be served on today’s date, February 7, 2018.

27

///

28

///
1

Case 3:16-cv-00249-MMD-WGC Document 77 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 4

1

Defendants have indicated they need additional time to respond and gather documents. Therefore,

2

counsel respectfully requests an enlargement of time of fourteen (14) days to serve the responses and/or

3

objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Interrogatories.

4

II.

5

ARGUMENT
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

6

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may,
for good cause, extend the time: (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 (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the
party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

7
8
9
10

The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present a request

11

for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31

12

F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). Extensions of time may always be asked for, and usually are granted on a

13

showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8

14

F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947).

15

Counsel seeks an enlargement of time to serve the responses and/or objections to Plaintiff’s

16

Request for Interrogatories. Defendants’ time to serve the responses and/or objections has not expired.

17

This enlargement of time is not made for the purposes of delay or to prejudice Plaintiff. For these

18

reasons, Defendants request an enlargement of time of fourteen (14) days to serve the responses and/or

19

objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents.

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 3:16-cv-00249-MMD-WGC Document 77 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 4

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this motion for enlargement of

3

time to serve responses and/or objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents be granted.

4
5
6
7

DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By:

10

BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division

11

Attorneys for Defendants

8
9

12
13

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

14
15
16
17

_________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 8, 2018
DATED: __________________

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3