Harris v. Williams

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01162
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Attorney General 2 RUDOLF M. D’SILVA, Bar No. 16227 Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 4 Las Vegas, NV 89119 (702) 486-3375 (phone) 5 (702) 486-3768 (fax) E-mail: rdsilva@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 Daniel Garcia

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 KALEB HARRIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-01162-APG-MDC 11 Plaintiff,

12 vs. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 13 STATE OF NEVADA, et al. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 Defendants. (First Request) 15 16 Defendant Daniel Garcia, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General 17 of the State of Nevada, and Rudolf M. D’Silva, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this 18 Court for an extension of time to file a Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. 19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ). ECF No. 25. Plaintiff 22 Kaleb Harris filed an Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ (Opposition). ECF No. 32. 23 Defendant’s Reply in Support of MSJ (Reply) is due August 28, 2025. 24 On Sunday, August 24, 2025, a cyber attack was conducted on the State of Nevada. 25 As a result of this cyber-attack, State employees, including staff at the Office of the 26 Attorney General (OAG), have had limited access to there digital files. Many of the files’ 27 Defendants need to review to properly file a Reply are not able to be viewed by Defendants 28 due to the recent cyberattack. 2 to file their Reply. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, 5 that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 6 cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 7 is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any 8 purpose is needed, the proper procedure is to present a request for extension of time before 9 the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. 10 Pa. 1962). An extension of time may always be sought and is usually granted on a showing 11 of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 12 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a district court possesses the inherent power to control 13 its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 14 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 LR IA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons 16 for the extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the 17 specified period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before 18 the deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. 19 III. REASON FOR EXTENSION 20 Good cause is present to extend the Reply deadline for Defendants. Due to the 21 cyberattack on the state, Defendants have been unable to access there files to formulate 22 an appropriate response to Harris’s Opposition. As such, Defendant respectfully requests 23 a two-week extension (September 10, 2025) to file his Reply. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the deadline for Defendant’s 3 Reply this matter. Defendant asserts that requisite good cause is present to warrant an 4 |}extension of time. The request is timely. Therefore, the Defendants request additional 5 time, up until September 10, 2025, to file his Reply in this matter. 6 DATED this 27th day of August, 2025. 7 AARON D. FORD Attorney General

9 By: /s/ Rudolf M. D’Silva RUDOLF M. D’SILVA, Bar No. 16227 10 Deputy Attorney General 11 Attorneys for Defendants 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED: 15 Dated:_September 2, 2025 _ Z : 16 ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28