Uchikura v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Vladik Uchikura, No. CV-22-00002-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Willis Towers Watson Call Center, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to respond to pro se Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. 42.) Defendants seek a one-week extension because their counsel “has had a family emergency that required time away from the office.” (Id.) Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff to see if he would agree to the extension request, but “Plaintiff stated he would oppose the request, despite Defendants not having opposed Plaintiff’s requests for extensions.” (Id.) Plaintiff has filed four motions for deadline extensions (Docs. 10, 19, 26, 31), each of which was granted. This is Defendants’ first request for an extension in this matter.

23 The motion will be granted without further briefing. There is no conceivable argument against permitting Defendants a one-week extension, particularly when the reason for the extension is that their counsel had a family emergency. Agreeing to reasonable extension requests is a basic civility in litigation, one that Defendants have extended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is reminded that “not only must pro se litigants follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, but they must also conduct || themselves with the same civility, decorum, and professionalism that is expected of 2|| attorneys,” including “the professional courtesy of agreeing to reasonable requests to || extend deadlines.” Martin v. Pizza, 2022 WL 4000640, *2 (D. Nev. 2022).

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Doc. 42) is 6|| granted. The deadline for Defendants to respond to the TAC is extended to March 14, 7\| 2023.

8 Dated this 28th day of February, 2023.

10 Lom ee” ll f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge _2-