Antonetti v. McDaniels et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting ECF No. 72 Defendant Boyd's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. Response due by 7/19/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, #13142
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Renee Baker, Mark Boyd, Rebecca Boyd,
Dwayne Deal, Charles Dudley, Sheryl Foster,
William Gittere, Curtis Kerner, James Lester,
E.K. McDaniel, Williams Moore, Dwight Neven,
Brian Sandoval, Tasheena Sandoval, Scott Sisco,
Donald Southworth, and Brian Williams

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT BOYD’S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(Second Request)

v.
E.K. MCDANIELS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Defendant Mark Boyd, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of

19

Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby moves this Court for an

20

enlargement of time to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

21
22

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23

This case is a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 15 at 1.

24

Plaintiff, Joseph Antonetti (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of

25

Corrections (NDOC). Id. After Defendants answered Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No.

26

46, this Court issued its Scheduling Order, which, inter alia, set forth the time permitted for discovery.

27

ECF No. 47 at 2.

28

///
1

1

On May 21, 2019, this Honorable Court graciously granted Defendant Boyd’s Motion for

2

Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of documents. ECF No. 56.

3

Unfortunately, due to a calendaring error at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), the responses to

4

the requests for production of documents were not served upon Plaintiff. Moreover, Boyd has not yet

5

provided the OAG with the responsive documents for Plaintiff’s eighty-one (81) requests, some of

6

which request multiple documents, most of which span several years, and many of which Plaintiff

7

should already have in his possession or could easily obtain on his own. Accordingly, Boyd respectfully

8

requests this Court allow him thirty (30) additional days to respond to the discovery request.

9

II.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

10

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v.

11

Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir.

12

1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)1 governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

13

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.

14
15
16

Therefore, a party requesting an enlargement of time to complete an act after the expiration of

17

the time to do so must show “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The Supreme Court has

18

outlined several factors for determining when neglect is excusable for the purposes of FRCP 6(b)(1)(B).

19

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). Those factors are

20

as follows: “the danger of prejudice to the [non-movant], the length of the delay and its potential

21

impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable

22

control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id.

23

III.

DISCUSSION

24

Here, a clerical error occurred at the OAG, so the deadline to serve Boyd’s responses to

25

Plaintiff’s eighty-one (81) requests for production of documents was missed. Additionally, the OAG

26

has not yet received the documents responsive to those requests, some of which request multiple

27

documents, most of which span several years, and many of which Plaintiff should already have in his

28

1

Rule 34 also specifically authorizes this Court to extend the time permitted for a party to respond to a request for
production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).

2

1

possession or could easily obtain on his own. Boyd asserts the calendaring error constitutes excusable

2

neglect for the requested enlargement. Had the matter been properly calendared, the OAG would have

3

timely secured responses from Boyd and served those responses on Plaintiff.

4

enlargement should not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, nor should it impact these proceedings in any

5

meaningful manner. Furthermore, Boyd makes this request in good faith and not for the purpose of

6

unnecessary delay.

7

IV.

8
9
10

The requested

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Boyd respectfully request that he be allowed up to and

including Friday, July 19, 2019, to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.
DATED this 20th day of June, 2019.
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

11
12
13

By:

14

GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142
Deputy Attorney General

15

Attorneys for Defendants

16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 21, 2019.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3