Prentice et al v. State of Nevada et al, No. 2:2018cv01801 - Document 74 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 73 Motion to Extend Time. Responses due by 5/27/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/18/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prentice et al v. State of Nevada et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 74 AARON D. FORD Attorney General ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 East Washington Avenue Suite 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-4070 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: ajsmith@ag.nv.gov 7 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants Kim Thomas, Julio Calderin, Brian Williams, James Dzurenda, Harold Wickham, and Richard Snyder 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 ANTHONY PRENTICE, 14 Case No. 2:18-cv-01801-APG-VCF Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 17 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND BY FIFTEEN DAYS THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FEBRUARY 8, 2021 DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendants. (SECOND REQUEST) 18 19 Defendants, Kim Thomas, Julio Calderin, Brian Williams, James Dzurenda, Harold 20 Wickham, and Richard Snyder, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney 21 General, and Alexander J. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office 22 of the Attorney General, hereby move to extend the time in which to respond to Plaintiff 23 Anthony Prentice’s February 8, 2021 discovery requests. For the reasons outlined below, 24 Defendants require an additional fifteen days; this will take the May 12, 2021 deadline (as 25 ordered by ECF No. 72 at 1) to May 27, 2021. Defendants have good cause for an extension, 26 and Prentice will not be prejudiced by this second extension.1 27 1 28 Because Defendants previously demonstrated good cause (ECF No. 66), an April 30, 2021 order (ECF No. 72) extends the deadline date of Prentice’s February 8, 2021 discovery requests to May 12, 2021. 30 Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. LAW AND ARGUMENT 3 A. 4 Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs an extension of time: 5 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. 6 7 8 Rule 6(b), Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 9 Under Rule 6, good cause is not a rigorous or high standard, and courts have 10 construed the test broadly. Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010). 11 Rule 6(b) “[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases 12 are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983); Wong v. Regents 13 of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, courts should not 14 mindlessly enforce deadlines.”) An action should be decided on its merits and not on a 15 technicality. Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, LLC, 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d. Cir. 2015) (citing 16 Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transp. Corp., 334 F. Supp. 2d 197, 247 (NDNY 2014) 17 and observing that there is a strong preference for resolving a dispute on its merits). See 18 generally 1 Moore’s Federal Practice, §6.06[3] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.). 19 B. 20 LR IA 6-1 requires that a motion to extend time must state the reasons for the 21 extension requested and will not be granted if requested after the expiration of the specified 22 period unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the 23 deadline expired resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to 24 extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as 25 satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and 26 such a motion filed after the expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the 27 movant demonstrates that the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. 28 /// 30 Local Rules IA 6-1 And 26-3 Page 2 of 6 1 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion 2 to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery: (a) a statement specifying the 3 discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 4 (c) the reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 5 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) a proposed schedule for 6 completing all remaining discovery.2 7 C. 8 Rule 33(b)(2) requires a responding party to serve any answer and objection to an 9 interrogatory within thirty days after being served with the interrogatories, and the court 10 may extend the time. Rule 34(b)(2)(A) requires the party to whom a request for the 11 production of documents is directed to respond in writing within thirty days after being 12 served, and the court may extend the time. Rule 36(a)(3) governs the time limit for 13 responding to a request for an admission; a matter is deemed admitted unless, within thirty 14 days after being served, the party to whom the requested is directed serves on the 15 requesting party a written answer or objection. As with Rules 33 and 34, the court may 16 extend the time. 17 D. 18 19 Rules 33, 34, And 36, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Good Cause Exists For Extending A Second Time The Deadline To Respond, Thus The Court Should Grant Defendants’ Motion To Extend By Fifteen Days The Deadline To Respond To Prentice’s February 8, 2021 Discovery Requests 20 Prentice has served the following discovery requests on Defendants: 21 • • • • • • • • • • 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Requests for Admission (RFA) to Snyder — Due 5/12/2021 RFA to Dzurenda — Due 5/12/2021 RFA to Williams — Due 5/12/202 RFA to Thomas — Due 5/12/2021 RFA to Calderin — Due 5/12/2021 RFA to Wickham — Due 5/12/2021 Interrogatories (Rogs) to Calderin — Due 5/12/2021 Rogs to Thomas — Due 5/12/2021 Rogs to Snyder — Due 5/12/2021 Rogs to Dzurenda — Due 5/12/2021 2 LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered. Arguably, these apply only when a party moves for an extension to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery; here, Defendants neither move to extend a discovery deadline nor move to reopen discovery, so they are not discussed in the analysis. Page 3 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-01801-APG-VCF Document 73 Filed 05/12/21 Page 4 of 6 • • • 1 2 • • • • 3 4 5 For the reasons outlined below, Defendants require an additional fifteen days in 6 7 Rogs to Wickham — Due 5/12/2021 Rogs to Williams — Due 5/12/2021 Request for the production of documents (RFPD) to Calderin — Due 5/12/2021 RFPD to Snyder — Due 5/12/2021 RFPD to Williams — Due 5/12/2021 RFPD to Wickham — Due 5/12/2021 RFPD to Thomas — Due 5/12/2021 which to respond to all of the above. 8 Prentice has requested an extensive amount of discovery: seventeen separate 9 requests from a total of six defendants. Due to the voluminous amount of discovery, 10 obtaining responses to these requests and formatting the responses and any relevant 11 objections (in addition to producing the requested information itself) is taking much longer 12 than expected. Also, the paralegal assigned to this case has recently been off on furlough 13 leave and on sick leave. 14 Second, germane to this delay—which has affected timely responses in several other 15 cases—the State of Nevada has ordered its first execution in two years, and all available 16 staff have been roped in to deal with the case, including attorneys and paralegals, the latter 17 of whom assist with much of the discovery-related work. See State of Nevada v Zane Floyd 18 8th JD A-21-832952-W; 8th JD 99C159897 with a determination of warrant on May 12, 19 2021; Floyd v State of Nevada, 9th Cir. 14-99012; USDC 2:06-cv-00471-RFB-CWH (the 20 habeas challenges to the protocol); and Floyd v Daniels USDC 3:21-cv-00176-MMD-CLB 21 (Section 1983 suit regarding the protocol). 22 An evidentiary hearing was held in the Section 1983 suit on Thursday May 6, which 23 will likely result in further hearings and action by the State and the court. Additionally, 24 the District Court Judge set briefing on protective orders as to deliberative process 25 exceptions with a single day turnaround for both sides. This has inevitably had a short- 26 term impact on operations across the Division and has consumed much of the paralegals’ 27 time in addition to their usual discovery-related responsibilities. 28 /// 30 Page 4 of 6 1 E. 2 In order for the court to consider a discovery motion, LR 26-6 requires the movant to 3 meet and confer with the opposing party. Defense counsel met and conferred telephonically 4 with Prentice on May 12, 2021, and Prentice stated that he does not oppose this motion. 5 II. Meet And Confer CONCLUSION 6 Defendants demonstrate good cause for extending the May 12, 2021 discovery 7 response deadlines by fifteen days. This request will not affect the overall discovery 8 deadline of August 4, 2021 (ECF No. 50). Defendants respectfully request an extension of 9 time to May 27, 2021, to respond to all of Prentice’s outstanding discovery requests dated 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 February 8, 2021. DATED this 12th day of May, 2021. AARON D. FORD Attorney General By: /s/ Alexander J. Smith ALEXANDER J. SMITH (Bar No. 15484C) Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 17 18 19 ORDER 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED this 18th_ day of May, 22 2021. 23 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 30 Page 5 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-01801-APG-VCF Document 73 Filed 05/12/21 Page 6 of 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 and that on May 12, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 4 TO 5 PLAINTIFF’S FEBRUARY 8, 2021 DISCOVERY REQUESTS (SECOND REQUEST) 6 via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered with this Court’s 7 electronic filing system will be served electronically. 8 Anthony Prentice, #74880 High Desert State Prison P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, Nevada 89070 Email: HDSP_LawLibrary@doc.nv.gov Plaintiff, Pro Se 9 10 11 EXTEND BY FIFTEEN DAYS THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND 12 13 14 /s/ Carol A. Knight CAROL A. KNIGHT, an employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Page 6 of 6 TO
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
