Williams v. State of Nevada

Opinion

Attorney General 2 SAMUEL L. PEZONE, JR. (Bar No. 15978) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-4070 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: spezone@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants John Keast and Melissa Mitchell 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00430-CLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE 13 v. TIME TO FILE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 14 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 67) 15 Defendants. (THIRD REQUEST) 16 Plaintiff, Michael Leon Williams, by and through counsel, Andre M. Lagomarsino, 17 and Taylor M. Jorgensen, of Lagomarsino Law, and Defendants, John Keast and Melissa 18 Mitchell, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Samuel 19 L. Pezone, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney 20 General, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time to file Defendants’ Response to 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (ECF No. 67). This is the parties’ third request for an extension 22 of this deadline. There is good cause and excusable neglect for this Court to grant an 23 extension. LR 26-3. 24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due 27 diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. 28 City of Anaheim, CV10-03997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice 3 to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not 4 a prerequisite.” Id. 5 In determining whether any parties’ neglect is excusable, courts of this circuit weigh 6 four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay 7 and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including 8 whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving 9 party's conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004); 10 Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 11 395 (1993). 12 II. ARGUMENT 13 The parties request an extension of the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion in 14 Limine (ECF No. 67). This deadline passed on September 9, 2025. Based upon the 15 foregoing, there is good cause and excusable neglect to extend this deadline by two (2) days, 16 or until September 11, 2025. 17 On August 24, 2025, the State of Nevada’s computer systems suffered a large-scale 18 cyberattack. This attack resulted in all computer systems being taken offline, including the 19 Office of the Attorney General’s case management systems. Currently, these systems 20 remain unavailable, and there is currently no set date when these systems will be fully 21 restored. Counsel’s previous draft of Defendants’ opposition to ECF No. 67 remains 22 unretrievable. 23 In the interest of avoiding further delay, Defendants’ counsel has begun drafting an 24 opposition with what few resources remain available to him. However, completion of that 25 draft and filing of the opposition was further delayed by a systemwide password reset on 26 September 9, 2025, which resulted in Defendants’ counsel being locked out of his computer 27 for the entirety of the workday. Plaintiff’s counsel has kindly agreed to grant one additional 28 extension until September 11, 2025. Given these circumstances, the parties maintain that 1 ||the late filing of this stipulation is the result of excusable neglect, and the parties 2 || respectfully request that this Court grant an extension for good cause showing. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, good cause and excusable neglect exist to extend the 5 || opposition deadline. Defendants respectfully request that this Court extend the deadline 6 respond to ECF No. 67 until September 11, 2025. 7 ||DATED this 10th day of September, 2025. DATED this 10th day of September, 2025. 8 || AARON D. FORD 9 Attorney General /s/ Samuel L. Pezone, Jr. /s/ Taylor N. Jorgensen 10 |/Samuel L. Pezone, Jr. (Bar No. 15978) Andre M. Lagomarsino (Bar No. 6711) Deputy Attorney General Taylor N. Jorgensen (Bar No. 16259) 11 3005 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., No. 241 Attorneys for Defendants Henderson, Nevada 89052 12 (702) 383-2864 (phone) 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 ORDER 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 10, 2025. *

17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28