DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION OF NOTICE AND LEAVE TO USE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION (ECF NO. 87) (FIRST REQUEST)

VALERIE P. COOKE, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants, State of Nevada ex rel., Nevada Department of Corrections, and Renee Baker, Gloria Carpenter, Cheryl Mangum, and Michael Oxborrow, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Erin L. Albright, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this court for an enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87).

This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the papers and pleadings on file herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. NATURE OF MOTION

Defendants hereby move for an enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87). Defendants request the time to respond be enlarged to February 8, 2018.

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87) on January 9, 2018. The attached declaration outlines that Defendant Martin regained employment with the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") in late 2016-early 2017. Id. at 6-7.

Upon review of the motion and declaration, Defense counsel sought confirmation as to Defendant Martin's employment status with the NDOC. It was discovered that Defendant Martin is reemployed with the NDOC. Since Defendant Martin is a current employee of the NDOC, a request for representation packet has been supplied to Defendant Martin. He has been provided with one week to request representation.

III. LEGAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), the court may, for good cause, extend the time in which an act must be done if a request is made before the original time or its extension expires. The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present the request for extension of time before the expiration of the time for the brief to be filed. Extensions of time may always be asked for, and usually are granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of the Rule.

IV. DISCUSSION

Here, the time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87) has not expired. Defendants submit that the facts and the argument contained herein constitute good cause to enlarge the time for filing the response to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87). A request for representation packet has been provided to Defendant Martin. If he requests representation, Defense counsel will file a supplemental notice of acceptance of service; thereby, nullifying the need for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87). Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy and resources, Defendants request the time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87) to February 8, 2018 to provide Defendant Martin time to request representation.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court enlarge the time to respond Plaintiff's Motion of Notice and Leave to Use Service by Publication (ECF No. 87) be enlarged to February 8, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.