Ric'e v. Russell

Opinion

3 kee 4 PERCEY LEE RIC’E, Case No. 3:23-CV-00339-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEN 6 V. TIME 7 PERRY RUSSELL, et a/., [ECF No. 40] 8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Percey Lee Ric’e’s (“Ric’e”) motion for an extension of 10 time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) Ric’e’s response is due on April 7, 2025. He requests an extension to May 21, 2025. (/d. at 2.) 12 Ric’e asserts that an extension of time is necessary because “Defendants have made 13} statements that are fabrications that the plaintiff can show with the records are indeed 14 untruthful.” (/d.) 15 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) the court may, for good 16 cause, extend time if a request is made before the original time expires. The good cause 17 inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017). 19 Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that good cause exists to warrant 20 granting an extension but finds that a 45-day extension is not warranted and instead will grant a 21-day extension. Accordingly, the motion, (ECF No. 40), is granted in part and 22 denied in part. McNair shall file his response to Defendants’ motion for summary 23 judgment by no later than Monday, April 28, 2025. 25 DATED: April 2, 2025 ‘ . 26 97 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28