Slaughter v. Escamilla et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting ECF No. 57 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Discovery Request to Melissa Travis. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 57 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
BENJAMIN R. JOHNSON, Bar No. 10632
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
Shane Escamilla, Stephen Mollet
Sandra Rose-Thayer and Melissa Travis

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

RICKIE SLAUGHTER,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC
ORDER GRANTING

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

15

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO DISCOVERY REQUEST TO MELISSA
TRAVIS

ESCAMILLA, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

Defendants, Shane Escamilla, Stephen Mollet, Sandra Rose-Thayer, and Melissa Travis, by and

18

through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Benjamin R.

19

Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, do hereby move this Court for an enlargement of time to serve their

20

responses and/or objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests to Defendant Melissa Travis. This Motion

21

is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all papers and pleadings on file

22

herein.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23
24

I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25

On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff served his second set of interrogatories to Defendant Melissa Travis.

26

He also included a request for production of documents in the same request. Defendants served responses

27

to the request for production of documents on May 30, 2018. However, Defendant Travis has requested a

28

small extension of time to complete her responses to the interrogatories.
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:
1

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 57 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 3
1

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.

2
3
4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Defendant Travis seeks an enlargement of time to serve responses to the second set of

10

interrogatories. Good cause exists to extend the time to file this motion. Defendant Travis needs a

11

small enlargement of time to respond, up to and including, June 13, 2018. Plaintiff will not be

12

prejudiced by this short extension of time.

13

II.

14
15
16
17
18
19

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request their motion for enlargement of time is

granted and the deadline for serving discovery responses be extended to June 13, 2018.
DATED this 30th day of May, 2018.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By:

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Attorneys for Defendants
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

27

_________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

DATED: __________________
May 31, 2018
2