Antonetti v. McDaniels et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting ECF No. 113 Motion as follows: - Dispositive Motions due by August 7, 2020- Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by September 7, 2020, if no Dispositive Motions are pendingTHERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
E.K. MCDANIELS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
July 10, 2020

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

KAREN WALKER

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 for Leave to File a Belated Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 113). Defendants request an additional 63 days to file a dispositive motion
and state:
“the motion for summary judgment in the instant case was due on May 29,
2020. ECF No. 105 at 2. Quarantine measures recently imposed by Governor
Sisolak in response to the COVID-19 virus pandemic have necessitated
home-based work arrangements for staff at the Office of the Attorney General
(“OAG”). Due to limited access to the OAG’s legal document tracking
software while working remotely, the undersigned counsel confused the two
Antonetti cases and erroneously believed a motion for summary judgment
had already been filed in this case.” (Id. at 2.)
The court will note that Defendants’ motion fails to comply with LR IA 6-1(a) which states:
A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension
requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject
deadline the court granted. (Examples: “This is the first stipulation for
extension of time to file motions.” “This is the third motion to extend time to
take discovery.”) . . . (emphasis added)
///

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC
July 10, 2020
Page Two
____________________________/

Although a technicality, it nonetheless is a component of the Local Rule regarding
extensions. Defendants’ motion did not identify the number of prior extension requests sought
by defendants, which in this instance reflects there were three prior requests - which the court
granted.
Additionally, Deputy Attorney General Martin does not explain how furloughs within the
Attorney General’s office (and how many days of furlough were required to be take and when)
prevented requesting an extension of time before the dispositive motion deadline of May 29,
2020 expired. The court’s docket reflects that the court has granted Defendants’ multiple
extensions to file dispositive motions (ECF Nos. 86, 88, 97, and 105).
The court is concerned that to permit such an egregious miscalculation of deadlines that
the calendaring system of the Office of the Attorney General appears to be in serious disarray.
The court will nonetheless reluctantly GRANT Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 113). The
parties shall have to and including August 7, 2020, in which to file dispositive motions. The Joint
Pretrial Order shall be filed on or before September 7, 2020, if no dispositive motions are pending.
THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
By: _______/s/_____________
Deputy Clerk