DEFENDANT NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF ITS TWO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(First Request)

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Defendant, National Security Technologies, LLC ("NSTec"), respectfully files its unopposed motion seeking an enlargement of time of ten days, up to and including Thursday, March 3, 2016, in which to submit its reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff, Eagle Rock Contracting, LLC's ("ERC"), Claims filed on January 11, 2016 at ECF No. 81, and its reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTec's Counterclaims filed on January 11, 2016 at ECF No. 82 (collectively, the "Replies").

Counsel for NSTec conferred with counsel for ERC regarding the relief requested in this motion and has been authorized to represent to the Court that ERC does not oppose NSTec's requested extension.

NSTec filed both the Motion for Summary Judgment on ERC's Claims and the Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTec's Counterclaims (collectively, the "Motions for Summary Judgment") on January 11, 2016. See ECF No. 81 and 82, respectively. Yesterday, on February 4, 2016, ERC filed its Oppositions to the Motions for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 87 and 88. Accordingly, NSTec's Replies for the Motions for Summary Judgment are currently due on February 22, 2016. See LR 7-2(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) and (d).

An unexpired deadline may be extended upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Here, good cause exists for NSTec's requested ten-day extension of time to file its Replies. Specifically, NSTec's in-house counsel, who has been working on this case since its inception, will be traveling out of the country and unavailable beginning this coming weekend and is not scheduled to return to the United States until February 24, 2016, which is after the February 22, 2016 deadline for NSTec to file its Replies. NSTec therefore seeks additional time to allow for its in-house counsel to provide input on the Replies before they are filed with the Court. NSTec is seeking an extension now, well before the deadline for filing its Replies, based on these circumstances. See id.

NSTec has neither requested nor been granted any other enlargement of time to file its Replies. Further, if granted, the requested enlargement of time for the Replies would not prejudice any party, delay any scheduled deadline in this case, or otherwise cause any undue hardship to the parties in this matter. No trial date has been set and there are no other pending deadlines in this case that would be impacted by the granting of NSTec's requested extension.

WHEREFORE, NSTec respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting it an enlargement of time, up to and including Thursday, March 3, 2016, in which to file each of its Replies, specifically its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on ERC's Claims (ECF No. 81), and its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on NSTec's Counterclaims (ECF No. 82).

IT IS SO ORDERED.