Slaughter v. Escamilla et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting ECF No. 76 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Escamilla (ECF No. 68 ). Response/opposition due by 7/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 76 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 4
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,

13

Case No. 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
ESCAMILLA

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15

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 file their

20

response to Plaintiff’s 2nd Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Escamilla (ECF No. 68).

21

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

22

on file herein.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

This

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 76 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Escamilla.

4

(ECF No. 68). Counsel has been working on an opposition and needs to confer with Defendant Escamilla

5

on some supplemental discovery responses. Defendants request a small enlargement of time, up to and

6

including, July 20, 2018, in order to solve any disparities, amend discovery responses if needed and to

7

submit a response to the motion to compel.
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

8

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.

9
10
11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Counsel requests an enlargement of time, up to and including July 20, 2018, to file an

18

opposition to the Motion for Sanctions. Counsel needs additional time to confer with Defendant

19

Escamilla regarding the disparity in discovery responses and to amend accordingly. Plaintiff will not

20

be prejudiced by a small enlargement of time. Good cause exists to extend the time to file this motion

21

and the request is not made to delay or for any improper purpose.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
///
2

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 76 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 4
1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

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

3

granted and the deadline for filing an opposition to the second motion for sancitons be extended to July

4

20, 2018.

5
6
7
8

DATED this 16th day of July, 2018.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By:

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

9
10
11
12

Attorneys for Defendants

13
14

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

15
16
17

_________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

July 17, 2018
DATED: __________________

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3