McGuire v. Nevada Department of Corrections

Opinion

Attorney General VICTORIA C. COREY (Bar No. 16364) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada, 89119 (702) 486-9245 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Email: vcorey@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants, Wiiliam Gittere and Calvin Johnson ROBERT MCGUIRE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00165-ART-CLB Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY CORRECTIONS, et al., JUDGMENT [FIRST REQUEST] Defendant. Defendants, William Gittere and Calvin Johnson, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Victoria C. Corey, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and related filings [ECF Nos. 31-34]. This is Defendants’ first request for an extension of the subject deadline. This is a pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim brought by offender, Robert McGuire (McGuire). This Court entered a scheduling order with a discovery /// /// /// ECF No. 20. McGuire filed his original motion for summary judgment on March 19, 2024, just fifteen days after the opening of discovery. ECF No. 24. This motion was denied as premature the same day. ECF No. 25. On August 7, 2024, McGuire re-filed his motion for summary judgment, along with three (3) supplements. ECF Nos. 31-34. As such, Defendants’ response to McGuire’s motions are due on August 28, 2024. Discovery does not officially close until August 31, 2024. ECF No. 20 at 6:22-23. Defendants request an extension to respond to McGuire’s motions from August 28, 2024, to September 13, 2024, and contend that good cause exists for such an extension. To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV1003997MMMJEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not a prerequisite.” Id. Defendants request additional time to file their response to McGuire’s motions. As discovery in this matter does not end until after Defendants’ deadline to file a response to McGuire’s motions, Defendants assert that it would be judicially efficient to respond to McGuire’s motions after the discovery deadline has passed. Furthermore, undersigned counsel will be out of office from August 28, 2024 to September 11, 2024 and will be undergoing surgery during this time. ///

1 As this is a Saturday, Defendants contend that the discovery deadline is actually September 3, 2024, as September 2, 2024 is a holiday. Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the deadline for their response McGuire’s motions. Defendants assert the requisite good cause is present to warrant an extension of time. As such, the Defendants request additional time, up until September 30, 2024, to file their response to McGuire’s motions. DATED this 26th day of August 2024. Attorney General By: /s/ Victoria C. Corey VICTORIA C. COREY, Bar No. 16364 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants IT Is SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2024 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE