Watson v. Utah Highway Patrol et al, No. 4:2018cv00057 - Document 72 (D. Utah 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 70 Motion for Permanent Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler on 4/16/19 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Watson v. Utah Highway Patrol et al Doc. 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH LARRY WATSON, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT EXTENSION v. Case No. 4:18-cv-00057-DN-PK UTAH HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., District Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler Defendants. Larry Watson, a pro se plaintiff, has filed a motion (the “Motion”) 1 requesting a permanent 14-day extension to respond to any motion that any defendant may file in this case because of various physical, mental, and emotional difficulties. Regarding extensions of time, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) states: (1) (2) 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 a 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. A court must not extend the time to act under Rule 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b). Watson has not shown good cause for why he cannot comply with this rule should the need for an extension arise in the future in connection with a specific motion. He has also not provided any reason why it should be doubted that defense counsel will comply with standard 14 of the Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility, which requires all lawyers to “agree to 1 Motion Showing Good Cause for Plaintiff to Have Permanent Extension of Time of 14 Days Each to Reply to Any/All of Defendants’ Replies, docket no. 70, filed April 15, 2019. Dockets.Justia.com reasonable requests for extension of time and waiver of procedural formalities when doing so will not adversely affect their clients’ legitimate rights.” ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion 2 is DENIED. Signed April 16, 2019. BY THE COURT: Paul Kohler United States Magistrate Judge 2 Docket no. 70, filed April 15, 2019. 2
]]>
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.
