Thomas Rios v. Officer Griffen, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Attorney General 2 JAMIE S. HENDRICKSON (Bar No. 12770) Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 5 (775) 684-1234 (phone) Email: jhendrickson@ag.nv.gov 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants Jonathan Griffin, Malique Lyons 8 Marc Sydiongco and Patrick Moreda 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 THOMAS RIOS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01184-APG-BNW 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 OFFICER GRIFFEN, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (First Request) 16 17 Defendants, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State 18 of Nevada, and Jamie S. Hendrickson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this 19 Court for an extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. 20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On Sunday, August 24, 2025, the State of Nevada was targeted as part of a 23 sophisticated cyberattack which rendered much of the states cyber infrastructure disabled 24 for over a month. As a result, State employees, including staff at the Office of the Attorney 25 General (OAG) and the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), had limited access to 26 files saved in their network from August 24, 2025, to September 29, 2025. 27 Defendants intend on filing a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) in this matter. 28 However, as a consequence of the cyberattack, the OAG has incurred a severe backlog of 2 that require responses to motions for injunctive relief by late October, and Counsel has 3 multiple dispositive motions due in early November. Accordingly, Defendants will not be 4 able to file their MSJ by the current deadline, which is set for October 29, 2025. 5 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request a thirty-day extension or until 6 November 28, 2025, to file their MSJ. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, 9 that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 10 cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 11 is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose 12 is needed, the proper procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time 13 fixed has expired. Canup v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). 14 An extension of time may always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good 15 cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 16 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a district court possesses the inherent power to control its own 17 docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 18 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 LR IA 6-1 additionally requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons 20 for the extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the 21 specified period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before 22 the deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. 23 III. REASON FOR EXTENTION 24 Good cause is present to extend the MSJ deadline for Defendants. Due to the 25 cyberattack on the state, leaving Defendants unable to access their files for over a month, 26 created a severe backlog of work for the OAG. Additionally, undersigned Counsel has 27 multiple dispositive motions coming due in early November as well as multiple emergency 28 /// 1 ||responses to motions for injunctive relief in late October. As such, Defendants respectfully 2 request a thirty-day extension or until (November 28, 2025) to file their MSJ. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the deadline for Defendants’ MSJ. 5 || Defendant asserts that requisite good cause is present to warrant an extension of time. 6 request is timely. Therefore, the Defendants request additional time, up until 7 ||November 28, 2025, to file their MSJ in this matter. 8 DATED this 10th day of October 2025. 9 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 10 11 By: /s/ Jamie S. Hendrickson JAMIE 8. HENDRICKSON (Bar No. 12770) 12 Senior Deputy Attorney General 18 Attorneys for Defendants 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED: 17 Dated: October 14, 2025

19 ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28