A AAtRtoOrNne Dy .G FeOnRerDa l 2 ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1227 5 E-mail: [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants Richard Ashcraft, Steven Cornfield, 7 Charles Daniels, Michael Fernandez, Travis Fratis, Debra Gregoire, Kody 8 Hollaway, Veronica Meza, Colter Rynerson, Robert Suwe, and Kirk Widmar 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00297-ART-CSD 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 14 v. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE 15 A. SHOOTING, et al., MOTIONS (SECOND REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 Defendants, Richard Ashcraft, Steven Cornfield, Charles Daniels, Michael 18 Fernandez, Travis Fratis, Debra Gregoire, Kody Hollaway, Veronica Meza, Colter 19 Rynerson, Robert Suwe, and Kirk Widmar, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada 20 Attorney General, and Andrew C. Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, 21 Office of the Attorney General, hereby respectfully move this Court for an extension of time 22 to file dispositive motions. This Motion is made and based upon the Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and LR 26-3. 24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES 25 I. FACTUAL ANALYSIS 26 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Lausteveion Johnson (Johnson) 27 pursuant to

. Johnson is no longer incarcerated with the Nevada 28 Department of Corrections (NDOC) and is currently released on parole. Pursuant to this 2 retaliation claims against Defendants Cornfield, Widmar, Ashcraft, Meza, Gregoire, 3 Rynerson, Fernandez, Hollaway, Suwe, Fratis, Daniels, and two (2) John Doe Defendants 4 when Johnson discovers their identify. (See ECF No. 6 at 10:10-20). Johnson was allowed 5 to proceed on one (1) Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant John Doe 6 when Johnson discovers his identity. (Id. at 10:21-22). This Court entered a Scheduling 7 Order with a discovery deadline of February 27, 2023 and a dispositive motion deadline of 8 March 29, 2023. (See generally ECF No. 21). Subsequently, this Court extended the 9 dispositive motion deadline to May 29, 2023. (ECF No. 36 at 4: 8-9). Thereafter, this matter 10 was stayed until May 22, 2023, at which time dispositive motions were due on June 2, 2023. 11 (ECF No. 39 at 1:20-21). 12 II. ARGUMENT 13 Defense Counsel respectfully requests a twenty-one (21) day extension of time to file 14 their dispositive motions from the current deadline of June 2, 2023 until June 23, 2023. 15 Defendants provide the following information in accordance with Local Rule 26-3. 16 A. Discovery Completed 17 • Defendant Richard Ashcraft’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set One) 18 • Defendant Richard Ashcraft’s Responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) 19 • Defendant Richard Ashcraft’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of 20 Documents (Set One) 21 • Defendant Richard Ashcraft's Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions 22 (Set Two) 23 • Defendant Veronica Meza’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set One) 24 • Defendant Veronica Meza’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogation (Set Two) 25 • Defendant Charles Daniel’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set One) 26 • Defendants’ Initial Disclosures 27 • Defendants’ First Supplemental Initial Disclosures 28 / / / 2 • None 3 C. Reasons why the Deadlines Were not Satisfied. 4 Defense Counsel requests an additional twenty-one (21) days to file their dispositive 5 motions. Defense Counsel submits that his recent and upcoming schedule and workload 6 constitutes good cause1 for granting an extension of time to file Defendants’ Motion for 7 Summary Judgment. Defense Counsel has a Motion for Summary Judgment due on June 8 2, 2023, (Lausteveion Johnson v. Cornfield, et. al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00108-MMD-CSD). 9 Additionally, Defense counsel has two (2) other Motions for Summary Judgment due on 10 Monday June 5, 2023 and June 7, 2023, in the following cases: (Benjamin Espinosa v. 11 William Gittere, et. al., Case No. 3:21-cv-0205-ART-CLB), (Timothy J. Bohannan v. William 12 Gittere, et. al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00059-MMD-CLB). 13 Additionally, two (2) of the Defendants in this matter are former employees of the 14 NDOC. Given that, communication with the former employees is more difficult and this 15 extension would allow proper communication with those two (2) Defendants in order to 16 prepare and obtain declarations to be used as exhibits for the dispositive motion. Given 17 that, Defense Counsel makes this request in good faith and not to cause undue delay or for 18 any other improper purpose. 19 Notably, prior to the stay in this matter, Johnson reached out regarding the 20 possibility of settling this matter. Johnson was recently released on parole and 21 subsequently filed a Notice of Change of Address in this matter. In Plaintiff’s motion, he 22 informed the Court that he would be unable to receive any mail and/or respond to any mail 23 during this period. (ECF No. 37 at 2). Prior to the stay, Defense counsel was unable to 24 communicate with Plaintiff regarding the settlement proposal provided. Given that, the 25 / / / 26 1 The Ninth Circuit provided a non-exhaustive list of valid good-cause reasons in the 27 context of F.R.C.P. 6(b). See Ahanchia v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

. The Ninth Circuit noted reasons such as holidays, weekends, prior commitments, previously planned 28 trips, other occupational duties, personal and familial obligations, and the health of legal professionals.

. 2 offered by Johnson. 3 Dispositive motion deadline: June 2, 2023 4 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): July 5, 20232 5 D. Proposed Deadlines 6 Dispositive motion deadline: June 23, 2023 7 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): July 24, 20233 8 E. Good Cause Supports this Request. 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and 10 provides as follows: 11 This Court should find good cause supports this request. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court 12 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 13 original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of 14 excusable neglect. 15 Defendants’ second request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Johnson’s case. 16 Defense Counsel needs additional time to communicate with the former NDOC employees 17 and discuss Johnson’s settlement proposal provided prior to staying this matter. 18 Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested 19 extension of time. 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26

27 2 Thirty (30) days after the dispositive motion deadline is Sunday July 2, 2023. That date has been adjusted accordingly, including the July 4, 2023 holiday. 28 3 Thirty (30) days after the dispositive motion deadline is Sunday July 23, 2023. That date has been adjusted accordingly. 1 ||WI. CONCLUSION 2 Therefore, Defendants respectfully request an extension to June 23, 2023, to file 3 || their dispositive motions. 4 DATED this 24th day of May, 2022. 5 AARON D. FORD 6 Attorney General

7 By: /s/ Andrew C. Nelson ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 8 Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 There shall be no further extensions granted barring unforeseen and extenuating 12 circumstances. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: May 24, 2023. co Ss CSO oe 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28