Attorney General 2 D. RANDALL GILMER, (Bar No. 14001) Chief 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, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 6 (702) 486-3427 (Gilmer) (702) 486-3792 (Whipple) 7 (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: jwhipple@ag.nv.gov 8 drgilmer@ag.nv.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendants Scott Davis, Tim Garrett, Kara LeGrand, 10 Donald Southworth, and Harold Wickham 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 ANDRE HARDIMAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00584-MMD-CLB 15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TWO-WEEK 16 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 17 SCOTT DAVIS; et al., MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY DUE TO PENDING MEET AND 18 Defendants. CONFER REQUEST BY DEFENDANTS 19 (ECF NO. 24) 20 (First Request for Extension of Time) 21 22 Defendants, Scott Davis, Tim Garrett, Kara Legrand, Donald Southworth, and 23 Harold Wickham, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State 24 of Nevada, Chief Deputy Attorney General D. Randall Gilmer, and Jeffrey D. Whipple, 25 Deputy Attorney General,1 hereby move for a two week extension of time to file a 26 1 Counsel of Record, DAG Jeffrey Whipple, is out of the office on emergency leave, and therefore CDAG, D. Randall Gilmer has drafted and filed this Motion on behalf of 27 Defendants. It is anticipated DAG Whipple will remain counsel of record. As the circumstances surrounding the need for this leave are of a personal nature, should this 28 Court believe additional information is necessary, it is requested that the information be 2 2025 (ECF No. 24). Should this extension be granted, Defendants’ response will now be 3 due on Monday, April 14, 2025. 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 Defendants have provided responses to all seven of Hardiman’s Requests for 6 Production of Documents. However, with regard to Request No. 1, Defendants objected to 7 the request as being overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome, but also informed 8 Hardiman that to the extent documents could be identified, those documents would be 9 provided as a supplement. Counsel of Record, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Jeffrey 10 Whipple, is currently on emergency leave, but it is expected to return to the office within 11 the next several days. Ex. A, Declaration of Chief Deputy Attorney General (CDAG), 12 D. Randall Gilmer at 2, ¶ 2. 13 Prior to his departure, DAG Whipple scheduled a phone conference for Wednesday, 14 April 2, 2025 with Hardiman for the purpose of having a meet and confer relating to what, 15 if any, documents could be provided in response to Hardiman’s Request for Production No. 16 1 that would be amenable to Hardiman. Id. at 2, ¶ 6. Due to the scheduling of that meet 17 and confer phone conference, which will be held regardless of whether DAG Whipple has 18 returned (with CDAG Gilmer participating in his absence if necessary), Defendants request 19 a two-week extension to file the response to Hardiman’s motion as Defendants are hopeful 20 that the phone call will result in a resolution of this issue without this Court’s intervention. 21 Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 7-10. 22 In addition, the request is being sought due to DAG Whipple’s current leave, as 23 Defendants wish to ensure any substantive response is accurate in all respects, which, 24 given the nature of DAG Whipple’s current leave, the undersigned is unable to ensure at 25 this time. Id. at 2, ¶ 7. 26 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 27 Hardiman sent Requests for Production of Documents to all Defendants on or about 28 November 11, 2024. On February 21, 2025, Hardiman filed a motion to compel regarding 2 No. 23, as Defendants noted in their opposition to the motion to compel that those responses 3 had been provided on January 31, 2025 and March 5, 2025. ECF No. 22 at 2:9-1. Hardiman 4 did not file any reply following the opposition being filed, and therefore, this Court issued 5 an order denying the motion to compel as moot, as it “appear[ed] there is no longer a dispute 6 between the parties as to discovery. ECF No. 23 at 1:17-23. 7 In bringing the first motion to compel, Hardiman failed to provide this Court with a 8 copy of the disputed discovery request. Instead, within the body of the motion the purported 9 language of six of the seven responses. ECF No. 21 at 1:24-2:22. However, a review of the 10 discovery responses, particularly as to Request for Production No. 1, establishes that 11 Hardiman did not accurately reference the discovery sought, as the discovery request, 12 Exhibit B at 1:25-26, sought “[a]ll unit movement logs from April of 2022 to June of 2024,” 13 whereas the documents sought to be compelled in the first motion to compel for Request 14 No. 1 seeks “LCC’s unit movement long via N.O.T.I.S. (Nevada Offender Tracking 15 Information System) from April of 2022 to June of 2024.” ECF No. 21 at 1:24-26. Similarly, 16 now, Hardiman has reframed this question a third time to seek “[a]ll of LCC’s yard 17 movement via NOTIS (Nevada Offender Tracking Information System) from April of 2022 18 to June of 2023.” ECF No. 24 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12. 19 While Defendants admittedly did not provide any documentation in response to 20 Hardiman’s Request for Production No. 1, Defendants did provide Hardiman with objections to 21 the request, and noted that despite the objections, Defendants will “provide a response that is 22 reasonably related to the allegations in this case,” and that “[t]o the extent such documents exist, 23 all responsive documents within Defendant’s possession, custody or control and to which no 24 objection is being made will be produced under supplemental disclosures” and that “Defendants 25 reserve the right to supplement this response.” Exhibit C at 3:5-15. 26 Hardiman seems to acknowledge he received these responses one day before the 27 deadline to file a reply to his initial motion to compel, but neither sought an extension to 28 file a reply nor choose to file one. See ECF No. 24 at 3:1-6. He has now brought the instant 2 what documents he seeks to have produced. Compare Ex. B at 1:25-26 with ECF No. 24 3 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12. Defendants have scheduled a meet and confer phone conference for 4 Wednesday, April 2, 2025, for the purpose of discussing these discrepancies, which 5 Defendants hope will result in an agreement between the Parties as to what documents 6 Hardiman is seeking, and when those documents can be provided given the potential of 7 them being a high-volume amount of documents needing redaction. Ex. A at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-10. 8 III. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Courts have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR 10 Mfg, Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (citations omitted), and to “achieve the orderly and expeditious 11 disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) “Such power is 12 indispensable to the court’s ability to enforce its orders, manage its docket, and regulate 13 insubordinate [] conduct. Id. (citing Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08–cv01387–RLH–PAL, 2010 14 WL 3910072, at *2 (D.Nev.2010)). 15 LR IA 6-1 discusses requests for extensions. The rule states “[a] motion or 16 stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must 17 inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” 18 IV. ARGUMENT 19 As noted above, Defendants have provided responses to Hardiman’s request for 20 production of documents. Hardiman believes additional documents are necessary to fully 21 comply with Request for Production No. 1 – but in seeking those documents, has provided 22 a different date range and different language than that contained in the actual discovery 23 request at issue. Compare Ex. B at 1:25-26 with ECF. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Attorney General 2 D. RANDALL GILMER, (Bar No. 14001) Chief 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, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 6 (702) 486-3427 (Gilmer) (702) 486-3792 (Whipple) 7 (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: jwhipple@ag.nv.gov 8 drgilmer@ag.nv.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendants Scott Davis, Tim Garrett, Kara LeGrand, 10 Donald Southworth, and Harold Wickham 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 ANDRE HARDIMAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00584-MMD-CLB 15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TWO-WEEK 16 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 17 SCOTT DAVIS; et al., MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY DUE TO PENDING MEET AND 18 Defendants. CONFER REQUEST BY DEFENDANTS 19 (ECF NO. 24) 20 (First Request for Extension of Time) 21 22 Defendants, Scott Davis, Tim Garrett, Kara Legrand, Donald Southworth, and 23 Harold Wickham, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State 24 of Nevada, Chief Deputy Attorney General D. Randall Gilmer, and Jeffrey D. Whipple, 25 Deputy Attorney General,1 hereby move for a two week extension of time to file a 26 1 Counsel of Record, DAG Jeffrey Whipple, is out of the office on emergency leave, and therefore CDAG, D. Randall Gilmer has drafted and filed this Motion on behalf of 27 Defendants. It is anticipated DAG Whipple will remain counsel of record. As the circumstances surrounding the need for this leave are of a personal nature, should this 28 Court believe additional information is necessary, it is requested that the information be 2 2025 (ECF No. 24). Should this extension be granted, Defendants’ response will now be 3 due on Monday, April 14, 2025. 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 Defendants have provided responses to all seven of Hardiman’s Requests for 6 Production of Documents. However, with regard to Request No. 1, Defendants objected to 7 the request as being overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome, but also informed 8 Hardiman that to the extent documents could be identified, those documents would be 9 provided as a supplement. Counsel of Record, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Jeffrey 10 Whipple, is currently on emergency leave, but it is expected to return to the office within 11 the next several days. Ex. A, Declaration of Chief Deputy Attorney General (CDAG), 12 D. Randall Gilmer at 2, ¶ 2. 13 Prior to his departure, DAG Whipple scheduled a phone conference for Wednesday, 14 April 2, 2025 with Hardiman for the purpose of having a meet and confer relating to what, 15 if any, documents could be provided in response to Hardiman’s Request for Production No. 16 1 that would be amenable to Hardiman. Id. at 2, ¶ 6. Due to the scheduling of that meet 17 and confer phone conference, which will be held regardless of whether DAG Whipple has 18 returned (with CDAG Gilmer participating in his absence if necessary), Defendants request 19 a two-week extension to file the response to Hardiman’s motion as Defendants are hopeful 20 that the phone call will result in a resolution of this issue without this Court’s intervention. 21 Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 7-10. 22 In addition, the request is being sought due to DAG Whipple’s current leave, as 23 Defendants wish to ensure any substantive response is accurate in all respects, which, 24 given the nature of DAG Whipple’s current leave, the undersigned is unable to ensure at 25 this time. Id. at 2, ¶ 7. 26 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 27 Hardiman sent Requests for Production of Documents to all Defendants on or about 28 November 11, 2024. On February 21, 2025, Hardiman filed a motion to compel regarding 2 No. 23, as Defendants noted in their opposition to the motion to compel that those responses 3 had been provided on January 31, 2025 and March 5, 2025. ECF No. 22 at 2:9-1. Hardiman 4 did not file any reply following the opposition being filed, and therefore, this Court issued 5 an order denying the motion to compel as moot, as it “appear[ed] there is no longer a dispute 6 between the parties as to discovery. ECF No. 23 at 1:17-23. 7 In bringing the first motion to compel, Hardiman failed to provide this Court with a 8 copy of the disputed discovery request. Instead, within the body of the motion the purported 9 language of six of the seven responses. ECF No. 21 at 1:24-2:22. However, a review of the 10 discovery responses, particularly as to Request for Production No. 1, establishes that 11 Hardiman did not accurately reference the discovery sought, as the discovery request, 12 Exhibit B at 1:25-26, sought “[a]ll unit movement logs from April of 2022 to June of 2024,” 13 whereas the documents sought to be compelled in the first motion to compel for Request 14 No. 1 seeks “LCC’s unit movement long via N.O.T.I.S. (Nevada Offender Tracking 15 Information System) from April of 2022 to June of 2024.” ECF No. 21 at 1:24-26. Similarly, 16 now, Hardiman has reframed this question a third time to seek “[a]ll of LCC’s yard 17 movement via NOTIS (Nevada Offender Tracking Information System) from April of 2022 18 to June of 2023.” ECF No. 24 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12. 19 While Defendants admittedly did not provide any documentation in response to 20 Hardiman’s Request for Production No. 1, Defendants did provide Hardiman with objections to 21 the request, and noted that despite the objections, Defendants will “provide a response that is 22 reasonably related to the allegations in this case,” and that “[t]o the extent such documents exist, 23 all responsive documents within Defendant’s possession, custody or control and to which no 24 objection is being made will be produced under supplemental disclosures” and that “Defendants 25 reserve the right to supplement this response.” Exhibit C at 3:5-15. 26 Hardiman seems to acknowledge he received these responses one day before the 27 deadline to file a reply to his initial motion to compel, but neither sought an extension to 28 file a reply nor choose to file one. See ECF No. 24 at 3:1-6. He has now brought the instant 2 what documents he seeks to have produced. Compare Ex. B at 1:25-26 with ECF No. 24 3 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12. Defendants have scheduled a meet and confer phone conference for 4 Wednesday, April 2, 2025, for the purpose of discussing these discrepancies, which 5 Defendants hope will result in an agreement between the Parties as to what documents 6 Hardiman is seeking, and when those documents can be provided given the potential of 7 them being a high-volume amount of documents needing redaction. Ex. A at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-10. 8 III. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Courts have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR 10 Mfg, Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (citations omitted), and to “achieve the orderly and expeditious 11 disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) “Such power is 12 indispensable to the court’s ability to enforce its orders, manage its docket, and regulate 13 insubordinate [] conduct. Id. (citing Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08–cv01387–RLH–PAL, 2010 14 WL 3910072, at *2 (D.Nev.2010)). 15 LR IA 6-1 discusses requests for extensions. The rule states “[a] motion or 16 stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must 17 inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” 18 IV. ARGUMENT 19 As noted above, Defendants have provided responses to Hardiman’s request for 20 production of documents. Hardiman believes additional documents are necessary to fully 21 comply with Request for Production No. 1 – but in seeking those documents, has provided 22 a different date range and different language than that contained in the actual discovery 23 request at issue. Compare Ex. B at 1:25-26 with ECF. No. 24 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12. 24 Defendants acknowledge that their Response to Request to Produce No. 1 could have been 25 clearer—and should have also included an objection based on proportionality, but also note 26 that given the shifting language contained in Hardiman’s initial Request for Production 27 No. 1 (Ex. B at 1:25-26) the first motion to compel (ECF No. 21 at 1:24-26) and now the 28 second motion to compel (ECF No. 24 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12). The ambiguity and vagueness of 2 dates ranges used by Hardiman in the three documents above to identify the documents he 3 is actually requesting. 4 Defendants have scheduled a meet and confer for Wednesday, April 2, 2025, to 5 discuss Hardiman’s concerns pertaining Request to Produce No. 1, as well as to seek 6 clarification as to what precisely Hardiman is seeking given the changes in date range and 7 language used in the Discovery Response (Ex. B at 1:25-26), the mooted Motion to Compel 8 (ECF No. 21 at 1:24-26, and the instant Motion to Compel (ECF No. 24 at 1:25-27, 2:9-12). 9 See also Ex. A at 2, ¶¶ 5-6. 10 In addition to this shifting nature of Hardiman’s request, DAG Whipple, counsel of 11 record, is currently on emergency leave. As a result, it is unclear at this point whether 12 there is any continued disagreement between the Parties, and to the extent there is not, 13 how much additional time will be needed to provide Hardiman with any additional 14 responsive documents to the extent they may exist. Defendants anticipate that the meet 15 and confer scheduled for Wednesday, April 2, 2025, will provide clarity on both of these 16 points. 17 As noted above, this is the first request for an extension of time. In addition, given 18 the discrepancies in the discovery request, the documents Hardiman seeks to compel in the 19 current Motion to Compel, and DAG Whipple’s current emergency leave, Defendants 20 respectfully state that there is good cause for seeking this fourteen (14) day extension. In 21 addition, there is no outstanding dispute regarding any other aspect of the discovery 22 exchanged between the parties, and Defendants have provided Hardiman with over 297 23 pages of discovery, as bates-labeled documents NDOC00001-NDOC00297 have been 24 provided as part of initial disclosures, supplementary disclosures, and discovery. Ex. D, 25 Supplemental Initial Disclosures at 4:24-6:19. Further, discovery is not set to close 26 until April 27, 2025 and therefore there will be no prejudice to Hardiman as it pertains to 27 this extension of time, as Hardiman will have until May 12, 2025 to file any discovery 28 /// 1 ||related motion that he believes may still be necessary following the meet and confer and 2 || production of any documents relevant to Request to Produce No. 1, ECF No. 6:11-20. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Defendants have responded to Hardiman’s discovery requests and a meet and confer 5 scheduled for Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in an effort to seek clarification as to what 6 ||}documents Hardiman seeks, and under what terms and conditions they can be provided. 7 || As such, Defendants seek a 14-day extension to provide any further response necessary to 8 || Hardiman’s instant motion, or for the parties to inform this Court as to whether a 9 || resolution has been agreed upon without the need for this Court to intervene further. 10 DATED this 315t day of March 2025. 11 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 12 By: /s/D. Randall Gilmer 13 D. RANDALL GILMER, Bar No. 14001 Deputy Attorney General
Lb Attorneys for Defendants 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 * 18 DATED: March 31,2025 19 UNITED STATED\ MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28