Filed: Apr. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2018
Summary: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Defendants David Mar and E.K. McDaniel (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Ian Carr, Deputy Attorney General, submit their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Joint Pretrial Order. This Motion is made pursuant to the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all other papers and pleadings on file in this action. MEMORANDUM
Summary: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Defendants David Mar and E.K. McDaniel (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Ian Carr, Deputy Attorney General, submit their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Joint Pretrial Order. This Motion is made pursuant to the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all other papers and pleadings on file in this action. MEMORANDUM ..
More
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Defendants David Mar and E.K. McDaniel (Defendants), by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Ian Carr, Deputy Attorney General, submit their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Joint Pretrial Order. This Motion is made pursuant to the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all other papers and pleadings on file in this action.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an inmate civil rights action brought by Plaintiff John Snow (Snow) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend the joint pretrial order deadline through February 19, 2018.1 See ECF No. 139 at 2. However, on February 16, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 140) and submitted their Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141), arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. See generally ECF Nos. 140, 141.
II. DISCUSSION
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
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. See Canup v. Mississippi 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. See Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Good cause exists to enlarge the time by which a party may file a brief where additional time is needed to prepare such a brief. See O'Connor v. U.S. I.R.S., 698 F.Supp. 204, 205 (D. Nev. 1988) (district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to oppose a motion for summary judgment).
Defendants assert that good cause exists to extend the time for a joint pretrial order until after the Court reaches a decision on Defendants' arguments in favor of qualified immunity. Doing so will permit the Court to make a determination on the potentially dispositive issue of qualified immunity, which would moot or obviate the need for a joint pretrial order.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an order extending the time for the parties to file a joint pretrial order until after the Court reaches a decision on Defendants' Motion for Leave to file a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 140) and the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
