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 [SECOND 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’ second 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 deadline of August 31, 2024 and a dispositive motion deadline of September 30, 2024. ECF No. 20. 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. On August 26, 2024, this Court granted Defendants’ first request for extension to respond to McGuire’s motions, extending the deadline to September 30, 2024. ECF Nos. 35-36. Defendants now request a second, and last, extension of time to respond to McGuire’s motions, as undersigned counsel has to undergo another surgery the week of September 23, 2024, and will be out for roughly a week and a half on medical leave. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) allows parties to request extensions of deadlines set in the Court’s scheduling order for good cause. 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. Defendants have acted diligently in conducting discovery, which is now complete. Good cause exists for an extension because undersigned counsel will be out of the office starting September 23, 2024, until roughly October 2, 2024, undergoing another surgery. See, e.g., Velazquez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00493, 2020 WL 13599709, at *18 (D. Utah Aug. 18, 2020) (attorney illness provided good cause to extend the scheduling order deadlines). /// 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 October 30, 2024, to file their response to McGuire’s motions. DATED this 20th day of September 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: September 20, 2024 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE