Williams v. McCoy

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 RONALD C. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00376-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE 6 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7 K. MCCOY, et. al., [ECF No. 46]

8 Defendants.

9 Before the Court is Defendants Raphael Brice and Steffen Moskoff’s (collectively 10 referred to as “Defendants”) motion for enlargement of time to file motion for summary 11 judgment. (ECF No. 46.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion, (ECF No. 46), is 12 granted. 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 This action began with a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Ronald Williams (“Williams”). 16 (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the District Court screened Williams’s 17 complaint, (ECF No. 19), and allowed him to proceed on a claim First Amendment 18 retaliation against Defendants W. George1, Brice, and Moskoff. (ECF No. 11.) 19 After screening, the parties participated in an Inmate Early Mediation Conference, 20 but ultimately did not settle. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants filed their answer to the complaint 21 on April 6, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) On May 2, 2023, the parties appeared for a case 22 management conference where the Court issued a discovery plan and scheduling order 23 (“DPSO”) outlining the deadlines that would govern the action. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) 24 The DPSO set the discovery deadline for October 30, 2023, and the dispositive 25 motion deadline for November 29, 2023. (ECF No. 33.) On November 28, 2023, Williams 26 submitted a request for production of documents to the Court, which was returned

27 1 W. George was dismissed from this action on August 11, 2023, pursuant to Fed. 1 pursuant to Local Rule IC 1-1(c)(12) and Local Rule 26-7 (interrogatories, responses, and 2 deposition notices shall not be filed unless ordered by the court) (ECF No. 41). On 3 November 29, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 42.) 4 The Court denied the motion, as it found that Defendants had failed to establish good 5 cause or excusable neglect as required. (ECF No. 45.) Further, because the Defendants 6 filed the motion to reopen discovery on the date dispositive motions were due, the Court 7 sua sponte granted an extension to January 11, 2024, to file dispositive motions. (Id.) 8 Counsel for Defendants has now requested 29 additional days to file dispositive motions. 9 (ECF No. 46.) 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling 12 orders and discovery plans. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be 13 modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” The good cause inquiry 14 focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. 15 Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017). 16 Local Rule 26-3 supplements Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and provides that discovery plans 17 and scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to extend 18 is made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” See LR 26- 19 3; see also LR IA 6-1. “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed 20 broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 21 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before 22 the applicable deadline has passed should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad 23 faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (citing 24 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d 25 ed. 2004)). 26 Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, any request made after this 21-day period 27 will only be granted if “the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result “inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 391-92 (1993)). 4 In determining whether neglect is excusable, the Court must consider the 5 | following factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the 6 | delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 7 | whether the movant acted in good faith. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). 9} The Court should “take into account all the relevant circumstances” when considering 10| these factors. Cap. One, Nat’ Ass’n v. SFR Inv. Pool 1, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00604-RFB- 11 NJK, 2020 WL 6271199 at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2020); see also Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. Ill. DISCUSSION 13 Defendants’ motion asserts that good cause exists to extend time to file dispositive 14| motions based on Defense counsel's other work responsibilities and “a lingering illness.” 15| (ECF No. 46.) Thus, Defendants request an extension to February 9, 2024, to file 16 | dispositive motions. (/d.) 17 For good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion, (ECF No. 46), is granted. The Court notes that it will not look favorably upon future requests for extensions of time based on work responsibilities. Further, because the Court already sua sponte granted an extension of time to file dispositive motions in this case, no further extensions 21 of time will be granted. Accordingly, dispositive motions shall be filed by no later than February 9, 2024. If dispositive motions are not timely filed, the parties shall instead file 23 | their joint pretrial order by no later than March 11, 2024. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25| DATED: January 16, 2024 .

27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28