Attorney General 2 ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1227 5 E-mail: [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendant Jesse Haines 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 WILLIE LEE JEFFERSON, Case No. 3:21-cv-00341-RCJ-CLB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 13 J. HAINES, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 14 Defendants. (SECOND REQUEST) 15 16 Defendant, Jesse Haines, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General 17 of the State of Nevada, and Andrew C. Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, hereby 18 respectfully move this Court for an extension of time to file dispositive motions in this 19 matter. This Motion is made and based upon the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) 20 and LR 26-3. 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Willie Lee Jefferson 24 (Jefferson), asserting claims arising under 42. U.S.C. §1983. Jefferson is currently an 25 inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and presently 26 housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). Jefferson was allowed to proceed 27 on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants, Jesse Haines (Haines) 28 and John Doe, once Jefferson discovery his/her identity through this Court’s mandatory 2 yet been identified. 3 On December 29, 2022, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order and 4 Discovery Plan with July 19, 2023, as the deadline for filing Dispositive Motions. (ECF 5 No. 24 at 6:1; 6:22-23). Initially, Defense Counsel requested a sixty-day (60) extension of 6 time to file dispositive motions (See ECF No. 28). At which time, the court denied the 7 request with leave to refile. (See generally ECF No. 29). Ultimately, after refiling the 8 request (ECF No. 30), this Court granted the extension ordering dispositive motions be 9 filed on or before August 9, 2023. (ECF No. 31). 10 A. Discovery Completed 11 • Defendant’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures 12 • Defendant Jesse Haines’ Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of 13 Documents [Set One] 14 • Defendant Jesse Haines’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions 15 [Set One] 16 • Defendant Jesse Haines’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One] 17 • Defendant’s First Supplement to Rule 26 Initial Disclosures 18 B. Discovery That Remains to be Completed 19 • Jefferson recently filed a Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In 20 that motion, Jefferson asserts the Defendants are withholding brady 21 material other discovery matters as well as a request for counsel. (See 22 generally ECF No. 32). 23 C. Reasons why the Deadlines Were not Satisfied 24 Defense Counsel requests an additional fourteen (14) days to file dispositive motions. 25 First, Defense Counsel submits that his recent and upcoming schedule and workload 26 constitutes good cause1 for granting an extension of time to file Defendants’ Motion for 27 1 The Ninth Circuit provided a non-exhaustive list of valid good-cause reasons in the context of F.R.C.P. 6(b). See Ahanchia v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

. The Ninth 28 Circuit noted reasons such as holidays, weekends, prior commitments, previously planned 2 2023, in the following case: Lausteveion Johnson v. Davis, et al., USDC 3:21-cv-00403-RCJ- 3 CSD. Additionally, Defense Counsel is scheduled to be in a week-long jury trial beginning 4 August 7, 2023, in the following case: Brett Doyle v. State of Nevada et. al., USDC 3:19-cv- 5 00725. Defense Counsel was also scheduled to be in another week-long jury trial 6 commencing August 15, 2023, in the following case: Justin Edmiston v. Saucedo, et al., 7 USDC 3:21-cv-00245-MMD-CSD, however, was vacated on the date of this motion. So, 8 Defense Counsel was spending time working to prepare each jury trial. 9 Second, prior to submitting dispositive motions in this present matter, Defense 10 Counsel would like additional time to confer with Mr. Jefferson and the NDOC in 11 consideration of settling this matter. Unfortunately, Defense Counsel is unable to meet 12 Jefferson until August 14, 2023. The reason Defense Counsel has been unable to meet with 13 Mr. Jefferson up to this point is because counsel was meeting with clients, witnesses, and 14 the Plaintiff in the aforementioned jury trials. So, Defense Counsel was unavailable until 15 after August 9, 2023, to meet with Mr. Jefferson. Additionally, Defense Counsel would like 16 to meet with Mr. Jefferson in-person to discuss the possibility of settling this matter as well 17 as the current discovery issues he has. This extension will allow the parties to discuss those 18 issues and possibly reach a resolution. Therefore, Defense Counsel makes this request in 19 good faith and not to cause undue delay or for any other improper purpose. 20 D. Current Deadlines 21 • Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 9, 2023 22 • Joint Pretrial Order (if no dispositive motions filed): September 8, 2023 23 E. Proposed Deadlines 24 • Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 23, 2023 25 • Joint Pretrial Order (if no dispositive motions filed): September 22, 2023 26 /// 27

trips, other occupational duties, personal and familial obligations, and the health of legal 28 professionals.

. 1 F. Good Cause Support the Extension of Time 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as 3 || follows: 4 This Court should find good cause supports this request. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court 5 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 6 original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of 7 excusable neglect. 8 Even though this request is untimely, the requisite good cause is present in order to 9 an opportunity to meet with Mr. Jefferson in-person to discuss these issues and 10 hopefully resolve them. Additionally, Defense Counsel was hoping to meet with Mr. 11 || Jefferson prior to August 9, 2023, in doing so, did not file this until now. So, Defense 12 || Counsel needs this additional to meet and confer with Mr. Jefferson as well as the NDOC 13 further discuss, and possibly pursue, a settlement in this matter. Based upon that, 14 || Defense Counsel asserts that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the extension 15 || of time. 16 |/ IL. CONCLUSION 17 Based upon the foregoing, Defense Counsel respectfully requests an additional 18 || fourteen (14) days to include up to and until August 23, 2023, to file dispositive motions 19 this matter. 20 DATED this 4th day of August, 2023. 21 By: /s/ Andrew C. Nelson 29 ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 Deputy Attorney General 23 ORDER 24 95 Defendant shall have until August 23, 2023 to file dispositive motions. No further extensions of time will be granted. 26 IT ISSO ORDERED. 27 98 Dated: August 4, 2023. ‘

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE