Attorney General 2 MANDANA DIVANBEIKI, (Bar No. 14862) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 East Washington Ave., #3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 (702) 486-3192 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 E-mail: mdivanbeiki@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, 8 Richard Long, David Mar, 9 Melissa Mitchell and William Miller 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 CHARLES MORRIS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00310-RCJ-CLB 14 Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 15 vs. THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE AND REQUESTING THAT 16 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., THE DUE DATE BE EXTENDED BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM 17 Defendants. MAY 7, 2021, TO JUNE 21, 2021 18 (SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 19 DEADLINE) 20 Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, Richard Long, David Mar, 21 Melissa Mitchell and William Miller, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney 22 General of the State of Nevada, and Mandana Divanbeiki, Deputy Attorney General, 23 hereby move to extend by forty-five days the dispositive motions deadline only from May 7, 24 2021, to June 21, 2021. This motion is unopposed. 25 On May 7, 2021, counsel for Defendants met and conferred via telephone with 26 Plaintiff Charles Morris to discuss the instant motion to extend the deadline to file 27 dispositive motions. Morris stated that this motion is unopposed. Defendants move for a 28 deadline extension for the reasons stated below. 2 I. LAW AND ARGUMENT 3 A. Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs extensions of time and states: 5 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 6 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 7 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 8 9 If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper procedure is to present a 10 request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. 11 Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may always be sought 12 and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) 13 of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). 14 B. Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-3. 15 LR IA 6-1 requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 16 extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified 17 period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the 18 deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to 19 extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as 20 satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and 21 such a motion filed after the expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the 22 movant demonstrates that the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. 23 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion 24 to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery: (a) a statement specifying the 25 discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 26 (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 27 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for 28 completing all remaining discovery. C. Gexotoedn sciaouns eo fe txhiset ds,i sthpuossi atinv eo rmdoerti sohnosu dleda gdrlainnet .Defendants’ motion for an 2 3 Here, good cause exists for extending the dispositive motions deadline by forty-five 4 days. Defendants intend to move for summary judgment and will raise a qualified 5 immunity defense and argue that no constitutional violations occurred. By extending the 6 deadline by forty-five days, Morris is under no danger of prejudice, and the delay is short. 7 Attorney Divanbeiki started with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office 8 approximately two months ago. Upon commencement of her employment, Attorney 9 Divanbeiki became counsel of record for the defense in approximately thirty actions and 10 has worked assiduously and expeditiously to review each case file. 11 Attorney Divanbeiki inherited a somewhat chaotic and pressing caseload that 12 required her paying attention to multiple imminent deadlines; she has spent much of her 13 time reviewing her current cases, responding to those deadlines, and resolving discovery 14 issues as well as preparing for multiple early inmate mediation conferences et al. She 15 assumed defense responsibilities for this action as recently as March 10, 2021 (ECF No. 16 57), thus has had very little time with which to acquaint herself with this complex medical 17 case. 18 Attorney Divanbeiki has a medical condition that has required her recent attendance 19 at physical therapy. She suffers from an acute case of shoulder and neck pain (rotator cuff 20 strain) that requires the use of painkillers. Also, she must get up and move around 21 frequently. This has undoubtedly slowed down temporarily her typing and writing speed 22 and her ability to sit for extended periods. This medical condition requires ongoing care but 23 is improving. In sum, because of a heavy caseload, being a new starter, and having a 24 temporary medical condition, Attorney Divanbeiki would benefit from a brief extension of 25 time. 26 Morris sues for two counts of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and his case 27 preparation involves his examining copious amounts of medical records. Morris indicated 28 to Attorney Divanbeiki at today’s meet and confer that he also needs an extension of time 2 review fully his medical records. 3 A January 6, 2021 order (ECF No. 51) grants previous defense counsel’s January 4, 4 2021 motion (ECF No. 49) to extend the dispositive motions deadline to May 7, 2021. The 5 January 6 order states: 6 Because the Defendants do not know when Plaintiff review his medical records due to COVID restrictions, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion 7 (ECF No. 49) to allow a thirty-day extension as follows: 8 Discovery Deadline as to William Miller only: April 7, 2021 Dispositive Motions Deadline: May 7, 2021 9 Joint Pretrial Order Deadline: June 7, 2021 or thirty days following the court’s ruling on dispositive motion(s) 10 The Office of the Attorney General shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to 11 review his medical records as soon as is practical due to COVID restrictions. 12 (ECF No. 49 at 1–2) 13 Morris states that he still has not reviewed fully the records as ordered above; this 14 is due mainly to COVID restrictions, and defense counsel is working flat out to ensure that 15 Morris has necessary and continued access in accord with the Court’s January 6 order. 16 Thus, a forty-five-day extension will allow Morris to view his remaining records and 17 prepare his motion for summary judgment. 18 Finally, because of the COVID pandemic, Attorney Divanbeiki has worked from 19 home for much of the time, and this has made discovery more difficult than usual; her 20 ability to access Morris’s medical and other records (in addition to necessary declarations 21 and the like) has been impeded and slowed down; however, Attorney Divanbeiki is working 22 diligently to defend this action. In sum, Attorney Divanbeiki needs additional time in order 23 to adequately brief the Court for summary judgment in this action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Attorney General 2 MANDANA DIVANBEIKI, (Bar No. 14862) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 East Washington Ave., #3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 (702) 486-3192 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 E-mail: mdivanbeiki@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, 8 Richard Long, David Mar, 9 Melissa Mitchell and William Miller 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 CHARLES MORRIS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00310-RCJ-CLB 14 Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 15 vs. THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE AND REQUESTING THAT 16 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., THE DUE DATE BE EXTENDED BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM 17 Defendants. MAY 7, 2021, TO JUNE 21, 2021 18 (SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 19 DEADLINE) 20 Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, Richard Long, David Mar, 21 Melissa Mitchell and William Miller, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney 22 General of the State of Nevada, and Mandana Divanbeiki, Deputy Attorney General, 23 hereby move to extend by forty-five days the dispositive motions deadline only from May 7, 24 2021, to June 21, 2021. This motion is unopposed. 25 On May 7, 2021, counsel for Defendants met and conferred via telephone with 26 Plaintiff Charles Morris to discuss the instant motion to extend the deadline to file 27 dispositive motions. Morris stated that this motion is unopposed. Defendants move for a 28 deadline extension for the reasons stated below. 2 I. LAW AND ARGUMENT 3 A. Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs extensions of time and states: 5 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 6 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 7 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 8 9 If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper procedure is to present a 10 request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. 11 Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may always be sought 12 and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) 13 of the Rule. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). 14 B. Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-3. 15 LR IA 6-1 requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 16 extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified 17 period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the 18 deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to 19 extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as 20 satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and 21 such a motion filed after the expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the 22 movant demonstrates that the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. 23 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion 24 to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery: (a) a statement specifying the 25 discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 26 (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 27 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for 28 completing all remaining discovery. C. Gexotoedn sciaouns eo fe txhiset ds,i sthpuossi atinv eo rmdoerti sohnosu dleda gdrlainnet .Defendants’ motion for an 2 3 Here, good cause exists for extending the dispositive motions deadline by forty-five 4 days. Defendants intend to move for summary judgment and will raise a qualified 5 immunity defense and argue that no constitutional violations occurred. By extending the 6 deadline by forty-five days, Morris is under no danger of prejudice, and the delay is short. 7 Attorney Divanbeiki started with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office 8 approximately two months ago. Upon commencement of her employment, Attorney 9 Divanbeiki became counsel of record for the defense in approximately thirty actions and 10 has worked assiduously and expeditiously to review each case file. 11 Attorney Divanbeiki inherited a somewhat chaotic and pressing caseload that 12 required her paying attention to multiple imminent deadlines; she has spent much of her 13 time reviewing her current cases, responding to those deadlines, and resolving discovery 14 issues as well as preparing for multiple early inmate mediation conferences et al. She 15 assumed defense responsibilities for this action as recently as March 10, 2021 (ECF No. 16 57), thus has had very little time with which to acquaint herself with this complex medical 17 case. 18 Attorney Divanbeiki has a medical condition that has required her recent attendance 19 at physical therapy. She suffers from an acute case of shoulder and neck pain (rotator cuff 20 strain) that requires the use of painkillers. Also, she must get up and move around 21 frequently. This has undoubtedly slowed down temporarily her typing and writing speed 22 and her ability to sit for extended periods. This medical condition requires ongoing care but 23 is improving. In sum, because of a heavy caseload, being a new starter, and having a 24 temporary medical condition, Attorney Divanbeiki would benefit from a brief extension of 25 time. 26 Morris sues for two counts of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and his case 27 preparation involves his examining copious amounts of medical records. Morris indicated 28 to Attorney Divanbeiki at today’s meet and confer that he also needs an extension of time 2 review fully his medical records. 3 A January 6, 2021 order (ECF No. 51) grants previous defense counsel’s January 4, 4 2021 motion (ECF No. 49) to extend the dispositive motions deadline to May 7, 2021. The 5 January 6 order states: 6 Because the Defendants do not know when Plaintiff review his medical records due to COVID restrictions, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion 7 (ECF No. 49) to allow a thirty-day extension as follows: 8 Discovery Deadline as to William Miller only: April 7, 2021 Dispositive Motions Deadline: May 7, 2021 9 Joint Pretrial Order Deadline: June 7, 2021 or thirty days following the court’s ruling on dispositive motion(s) 10 The Office of the Attorney General shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to 11 review his medical records as soon as is practical due to COVID restrictions. 12 (ECF No. 49 at 1–2) 13 Morris states that he still has not reviewed fully the records as ordered above; this 14 is due mainly to COVID restrictions, and defense counsel is working flat out to ensure that 15 Morris has necessary and continued access in accord with the Court’s January 6 order. 16 Thus, a forty-five-day extension will allow Morris to view his remaining records and 17 prepare his motion for summary judgment. 18 Finally, because of the COVID pandemic, Attorney Divanbeiki has worked from 19 home for much of the time, and this has made discovery more difficult than usual; her 20 ability to access Morris’s medical and other records (in addition to necessary declarations 21 and the like) has been impeded and slowed down; however, Attorney Divanbeiki is working 22 diligently to defend this action. In sum, Attorney Divanbeiki needs additional time in order 23 to adequately brief the Court for summary judgment in this action. 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 The four factors contained within LR 26-3—(a) a statement specifying the discovery 3 completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the 4 reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed 5 within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for completing 6 all remaining discovery—are satisfied. Defendants have completed discovery in this action, 7 and no further discovery is needed. The reasons why both Morris and Defendants are 8 unable to adhere to the dispositive motions deadline are succinctly and thoroughly 9 elaborated on at length in the preceding paragraphs. No discovery remains, but Defendants 10 move to amend the scheduling order to extend by forty-five days the dispositive motions 11 deadline. 12 E. Meet and Confer 13 On May 7, 2021, counsel for Defendants met and conferred via telephone with Morris 14 to discuss this motion to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions. Morris stated that 15 this motion is unopposed. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered. Arguably, these apply only when a party 26 moves for an extension to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery; here, NDOC Employees neither move to extend a discovery deadline nor move to reopen discovery, but because 27 this motion seeks to extend a deadline originally established by a January 6, 2021 scheduling order (ECF No. 51) to May 7, 2021, out of an abundance of caution, the factors contained within LR 26-3 28 are addressed in case the court decides that the four-factor requirement contained within that rule applies in this instance. 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 Both Defendants and Morris demonstrate good cause to extend the dispositive 3 motions deadline to June 21, 2021. Morris does not oppose this motion. Due to the nature 4 summary judgment and the time and complexity involved in adequately briefing the 5 court, and because the Ninth Circuit and other appellate courts prefer to see that cases are 6 || tried on the merits and not on a technicality, Defendants respectfully move for an extension 7 || of time to file a motion for summary judgment and request that the due date be extended 8 ||from May 7, 2021, to June 21, 2021. 9 DATED this 7th day of May, 2021. 10 AARON D. FORD u Attorney General By: /s/ Mandana Divanbetki 12 MANDANA DIVANBEIKI (Bar No. 14862) 1B Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 14 Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, Richard Long, David Mar, Melissa 15 Mitchell and William Miller 16 NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED ABSENT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: May 10, 2021 19 * 20 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 and that on May 7th, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION 4 TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE AND REQUESTING 5 THAT THE DUE DATE BE EXTENDED BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM MAY 7, 6 2021, TO JUNE 21, 2021 (SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE 7 MOTIONS DEADLINE), via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are 8 registered with this Court’s electronic filing system will be served electronically. 9 Charles Morris, #62773 10 Northern Nevada Correctional Center P.O. Box 7000 11 Carson City, Nevada 89702 nncclawlibrary@doc.nv.gov 12 Plaintiff, Pro Se 13 14 /s/Sheri Regalado Sheri Regalado, An employee of the Office 15 of the Nevada Attorney General 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28