DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION (FIRST REQUEST)

CARLA BALDWIN CARRY, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants Romeo Aranas and Don Poag by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Joshua M. Halen, Deputy Attorney General, move for an enlargement of time to file a dispositive motion. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all papers and pleadings on file in this case.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. LAW AND ARGUMENT

This is a prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Richard Gates ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), currently housed at Lovelock Correctional Center ("LCC"). The Court has allowed Plaintiff to proceed with an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim based on alleged trouble he had obtaining his medication. Plaintiff has sued NDOC Director of Nursing Poag and NDOC Medical Director Dr. Aranas for responding to his grievance.

On November 6, 2018, the Court issued its order granting Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete discovery. (ECF No. 29.) The Court scheduled January 4, 2019, as the discovery completion date and February 4, 2019, as the dispositive motions deadline. (Id.)

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Second Request for Extension of Time ("Second Request") and requested that the discovery deadline be extended forty-five days. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Request (ECF No. 32) and Plaintiff filed his Reply on January 22, 2019 (ECF No. 33). As of the date of this Motion, the Court has not ruled on Plaintiff's Second Request.

As Plaintiff's Second Request regarding the extension of the discovery deadline is still outstanding, Defendants request that the dispositive motions deadline be extended. Defendants request that the dispositive motions deadline be extended 30 days after the Court denies Plaintiff's Second Request, if the Court denies the Second Request. Should the Court grant Plaintiff's Second Request, Defendants request that the dispositive motions deadline be extended until 30 days after the new discovery completion deadline.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup v. Miss. Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). 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. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947).

Defendant seeks an enlargement of time to file a dispositive motion. Good cause exists to extend the time to file this motion. The extension of time is needed as Plaintiff has filed a Second Request to extend the discovery deadline and that Request has not been ruled on as of the date of this Motion. Plaintiff filed his Second Request to extend the discovery deadline one day before the current deadline, as opposed to 21 days as the Local Rules require. As such, Plaintiff's Second Request has not been ruled on by the Court and it is unclear whether Defendants will be required to continue with discovery or file a dispositive motion. Accordingly, Defendants request an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Defendants request that if Plaintiff's Second Request is denied, the dispositive motions deadline be extended to 30 days after the Court denies Plaintiff's Second Request. If the Court grants Plaintiff's Second Request and extends the discovery completion deadline, Defendants request that the dispositive motions deadline be extended to 30 days after the new discovery completion deadline. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced the granting of this Motion. This request is made in good faith and is not for the purposes of delay.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Defendants request that if Plaintiff's Second Request for Extension of Time is denied, the dispositive motions deadline be extended to 30 days after the Court denies Plaintiff's Second Request. If the Court grants Plaintiff's Second Request and extends the discovery completion deadline, Defendants request that the dispositive motions deadline be extended to 30 days after the new discovery completion deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.