Ruiz v. Nevada Department of Corrections

Attorney General JEFFERY A. COGAN, Bar No. 4569 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1261 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Barbara Cegavske, Aaron Ford, Maribelle Henry, Steve Sisolak, Colette Stammerjohn, Harold Wickham, James Dzurenda, Renee Baker and Tara Carpenter UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA CARLOS RUIZ, Case No. 3:18-cv-00206-RCJ-WGC 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR vs. EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO ROMEO ARANAS, et al., INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR 16 Defendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [SET ONE] 17 (FIRST REQUEST) 18 Defendants Barbara Cegavske, Aaron Ford, Maribelle Henry, Steve Sisolak, Colette Stammerjohn, Harold Wickham, James Dzurenda, Renee Baker, and Tara Carpenter, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Jeffrey A. Cogan, Deputy Attorney General, submits this Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents [Set One].

24 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION 26 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by inmate Plaintiff Carlos Ruiz (Plaintiff) concerning events that allegedly took place at the Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC), asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that he is “Defendants, through AR 810, deny Messianic Judaism practitioners from keeping their appointed holy days on the days they occur and refuse to provide grape juice and matzah for Messianic sabbath services and high sabbaths per AR 810.” (Id.) 5 On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff propounded Interrogatories to James Dzundenda, Governor Steve Sisolak, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, Attorney General Aaron Ford, Mary Henry, Tara Carpenter, Renee Baker and Harold Wickham. He propounded Request for Admissions to Tara Carpenter, Renee Baker, and Harold Wickham and a Request for Production of Documents to Barbara Cegavske. A total of eighty-two (82) interrogatories were propounded to the defendants, thirty-four (34) requests for admissions, and two (2) requests for production of documents. Named defendant Rabbi Yisroel Rosskamm has not been served and the Court gave Plaintiff until December 18, 2020 to complete the USM-285 service form and return it to the U.S. Marshall so the U.S. Marshall may attempt service upon Rabbi Rosskamm. (ECF No. 28 at 2).

15 The Court’s Scheduling Order states that discovery shall be completed by December 24, 2020. (ECF No. 22 at 5, lines 8-9).

17 II. LEGAL STANDCARD 18 “For good cause, the court may extend the time prescribed by these rules or by its order to perform any act, or may permit an act to be done after that time expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). “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 fixed for the purpose in question has expired).

23 Pickett v. Valdez, Case No. 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 2570524, *2 (D. Nev. June 21, 2019) citing 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, ilnnesses, 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 The good cause standard considers a party’s diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, 715 F.3d 4 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

6 III. ARGUMENT 7 Defendants’ request is timely as discovery served on November 5, 2020 is not due until December 9, 2020. Since receiving the discovery, Defendants’ counsel has been preparing proposed responses for client review and had delays in completing the answers.

10 Because discovery must be completed by December 24, 2020 pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 9), there is no prejudice to Plaintiff by the extension as he may not propound additional discovery. Thus, Plaintiff’s case will not be hindered nor is there prejudice to Plaintiff’s case. The additional time will allow for more thorough response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants’ request an extension of fourteen (14) days to December 22, 2020 to allow Defendants to adequately research and respond to Plaintiff’s extensive discovery requests.

17 Finally, as Yisroel Rosskamm has yet to be served, there is a possibility that that a motion to extend the discovery deadline may be filed by Plaintiff or by Rabbi Rosskam.

19 DATED this 9th of December, 2020.

20 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 22 By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Cogan JEFFREY A. COGAN, Bar No. 4569 23 Deputy Attorney General 24 Attorneys for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2020.

28 ___________________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE