DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE A PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

(First Request)

CARLA BALDWIN CARRY, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this honorable Court for an enlargement of time for the parties to file a proposed joint pretrial order. This motion is made and based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), the following memorandum of points and authorities, and all pleadings and papers on file herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case is a pro se inmate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff, Richard Gruber (Plaintiff), alleges that Defendants, Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need of Parkinson's disease by refusing to treat him. Id. at 3.

On November 19, 2018, this Honorable Court issued a Minute Order requiring the parties to file a proposed joint pretrial order by Friday, December 7, 2018. ECF No. 114. To date, Plaintiff has not contacted Defendants' counsel regarding the joint pretrial order or provided a joint pretrial order for counsel's approval. Accordingly, Defendants will draft a proposed joint pretrial order and send it to Plaintiff for his consideration. Defendants' counsel will send the proposed order to Plaintiff today (December 7, 2018), so that this task may be completed as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Defendants respectfully request an additional thirty (30) days to file their proposed joint pretrial order.1

II. LEGAL STANDARD

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired)." Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that "the practicalities of life" (such as an attorney's "conflicting professional engagements" or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline. Id. Extensions of time "usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made." Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party's diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

III. DISCUSSION

Here, Defendants request an additional thirty (30) days to file a proposed joint pretrial order in accordance with the Court's Minute Order. Defendants expected Plaintiff to provide them with a proposed joint pretrial order for their consideration, but Plaintiff has not done so. In order to complete this task as expeditiously as possible, Defendants will therefore assume responsibility for this task and send Plaintiff a proposed order today. Nonetheless, the parties will obviously need additional time to file their proposed joint pretrial order. Consequently, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court allow the parties up to and including Monday, January 7, 2018, to file their joint pretrial order.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this honorable Court grant the instant motion and allow them until Monday, January 7, 2018, to file their joint pretrial order.