Boyd v. Henry

Opinion

1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) Deputy Attorney General 3 || JEFFREY D. WHIPPLE (Bar No. 16346) Deputy Attorney General 4 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 5 || 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 6 || (702) 486-3788 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 7 || Email: jregalia@ag.nv.gov 8 || Attorneys for Defendants 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || KEAIR BOYD Case No. 2:23-cv-01022-CD8-MDC 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDE 14 |} v. TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (FIRST REQUEST) 15 || NURSE HENRY, et al. 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff, Keair Boyd (Boyd), pro se, and Defendants Tanisha Henry and James 18 ||Scally, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and John 19 || Regalia, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 20 || (collectively “The Parties”) hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation and 21 || Proposed Order to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 INTRODUCTION 24 This is an offender civil rights matter filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 25 || Boyd is an offender in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and 26 || is currently housed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). 27 The Parties participated in a telephonic meet-and-confer on September 09, 2025, and 28 || have agreed that good cause exists to extend the dispositive motion deadline by 45 days in

Page 1 of 4

1 ||this matter. The parties hereby submit this stipulation and proposed order outlining the 2 || proposed new deadlines for this case, should this Court grant the requested extension of 3 || time. LEGAL ARGUMENT 5 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 6 || such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 7 || (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 8 || and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 9 |lrelating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 10 || LR 7-1(b). 11 The Nevada Federal Court’s Local Rules of Practice require a showing 12 || of good cause to extend any date set by discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order. 13 || Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00570-JAD-EJY, 2021 WL 12295888, at *2 (D. 14 || Nev. Apr. 26, 2021) (citing LR 26-3). 15 Any motion or stipulation to extend discovery deadline must include: (a) A 16 ||statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) specific description of 17 || the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why the deadline was not 18 || satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by 19 || the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. Id. 20 || (emphasis in original). 21 “As the Ninth Circuit stated in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 22 610 (9th Cir. 1992), good cause for the modification of a scheduling order under Rule 16(b) 23 |lof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure primarily considers the diligence of the party 24 seeking the amendment.” Kurian v. SNAPS Holding Company, No. 2:19-cv-01757-GMN- 25 ||EJY, 2024 WL 4169338, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 12, 2024) (quoting Carillo v. Las Vegas 26 || Metropolitan Police Department, Case No. 2:10-cv-02122-JAD-GWF, 2013 WL 4432395, at *2 (D. 27 || Nev. Aug. 14, 2013)). “In the absence of diligence, the inquiry into modification of a scheduling 28 || order should end.” Kurian, 2024 WL 4169338, at *2 (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Page 2 of 4

1 “Good cause means the movant could not meet the scheduling deadlines despite the 2 || party's diligence.” Pelletier v. Rodriguez, No. 3:17-cv-00642-MMD-EJY, 2021 WL 215489, 3 || at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2021) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 4 “[Clarelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for 5 ||a grant of relief. ... Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 6 || modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is 7 || upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. ... If that party was not diligent, 8 || the inquiry should end.” Pelletier, 2021 WL 215489, at *3 (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609) 9 || Gnternal citations omitted). 10 || TI. ANALYSIS 11 There is currently an ongoing statewide outage, which blocks the Attorney General's 12 || Office’s VPN access. Therefore, Counsel for Defendant is unable to access case files and 13 || documents. Defendants’ counsel has been unable to consistently work on any cases or 14 || obligations, including this one. The Court has been informed by General Counsel of the 15 |lissue. For this reason, the parties have agreed to move for an extension of 45 days. 16 || /// 17 18 |] /// 19 20 | 21 22 23 // 24 25 /// 26 || /// 27 28 | ///

Page 3 of 4

Proposed Schedule for Dispositive Motions 2 The parties jointly propose the following scheduling order which allows an extension 3 || until October 26, 2025, to file dispositive motions. 4 seme | October 26, 2025 Dispositive Motion Deadline ae 11, 5 6 || DATED this 10th day of September, 2025. DATED this 10thy day of September, 2025. 7 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 9 || By: /s/ : By: /s/ John Regalia Kenir Boyd John Regalia (Bar No. 16969) 10 || Plaintiff, pro se 1: L409 [> Ss Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 ITIS SO ORDERED. 13 2? Hgii. Maximiliano D. Couvillier, II 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 DATE: September 15, 2025 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Page 4 of 4