Filed: Jul. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner Jason S. Brown's Motion to File a Corrected Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") (ECF No. 36). Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) the first amended petition on January 15, 2019. The Court granted Petitioner four extensions of time to respond. (ECF Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30.) On May 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a 74-page Response (ECF No. 31) 1 along with three exhibits (ECF No. 32). Respondents
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner Jason S. Brown's Motion to File a Corrected Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") (ECF No. 36). Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) the first amended petition on January 15, 2019. The Court granted Petitioner four extensions of time to respond. (ECF Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30.) On May 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a 74-page Response (ECF No. 31) 1 along with three exhibits (ECF No. 32). Respondents r..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is Petitioner Jason S. Brown's Motion to File a Corrected Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") (ECF No. 36).
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) the first amended petition on January 15, 2019. The Court granted Petitioner four extensions of time to respond. (ECF Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30.) On May 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a 74-page Response (ECF No. 31)1 along with three exhibits (ECF No. 32). Respondents replied (ECF No. 35) on May 10, 2019, and the motion to dismiss was fully briefed.
Two months and 14 days later, on July 24, 2019, Petitioner filed the current motion requesting leave to file a corrected response and five supplemental exhibits (ECF No. 38). The motion attaches a 77-page proposed corrected response. He also filed a Motion to Seal (ECF No. 39) two of the five new exhibits (ECF No. 40) and a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 37). Petitioner states that he seeks to "correct the record and allegations in is response based on these exhibits." (ECF No. 36 at 3.) He does not oppose allowing Respondents to file a surreply if desired.
Counsel provides no explanation, much less good cause, for the failure to procure and include the supplemental exhibits and arguments in the original response. See LR 7-2(g) (""A party may not file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence without leave of court granted for good cause.") (emphasis added). This is particularly troubling given that the first amended petition alleges three claims for ineffective assistance of counsel by Petitioner's trial counsel and post-conviction counsel. The Court reminds counsel, pursuant to the Local Rules:
An attorney admitted to practice under any of these rules must adhere to the standards of conduct prescribed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted and amended from time to time by the Supreme Court of Nevada, except as these standards may be modified by this court. An attorney who violates these standards of conduct, or who fails to comply with this court's rules or orders, may be disbarred, suspended from practice before this court for a definite time, reprimanded, or subjected to other discipline as the court deems proper.
LR IA 11-7(a). Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and to ensure a complete record, the Court will grant the motion.
It is ordered that Petitioner's Motion to File Corrected Response (ECF No. 36) is granted.
It is further ordered that Respondents will have until August 9, 2019, to file any surreply in support of the motion to dismiss and respond to Petitioner's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 39) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 37).
