Attorney General 2 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-7629 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Defendants Scott Davis, Tim Garrett, Kara LeGrand, Charles Daniels, 8 Donald Burse, Dana Everage, Chad Venters, Cary Dyer, Marc Mallinger, and Julio Calderin 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 THOMAS BURDSAL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00074-CLB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. REQUEST FOR 9 DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 15 SCOTT DAVIS, et al., MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 16 Defendants. - KARA LEGRAND (SET ONE); PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 17 PRODUCTION BY KARA LEGRAND (SET TWO); A 7 DAY EXTENSION TO 18 RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO 19 ADMISSIONS FOR KARA LEGRAND (SET ONE); AND 9 DAY EXTENSION 20 TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO 21 INTERROGATORIES- SCOTT DAVIS (SET ONE) 22 ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, & 83 23 [FIRST REQUEST] 24 25 Defendants hereby request a 9 Day Extension To Respond To Plaintiff’s Motion to 26 Compel Answers to Interrogatories - Kara LeGrand (Set One); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 27 Production by Kara LeGrand (Set Two); a 7 Day Extension to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion 28 to Compel Answers to Admissions for Kara LeGrand (Set One); and a 2 Scott Davis (Set One). ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, & 83. 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5 This is an inmate civil rights actions brought by Inmate Thomas Burdsal (Burdsal), 6 pursuant to

, for events that allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated 7 at Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC). Burdsal’s primary factual allegation is he did not 8 receive Jewish Passover meals in 2022, and that he should have received those religious 9 meals. ECF No. 8 at 4:1-28. This Court allowed Burdsal to proceed on a First Amendment 10 free exercise claim, a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000 11 (RLUIPA) claim, a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and a state-law claim 12 for the intentional infliction of emotional distress against proposed Defendants Davis, 13 Garrett, LeGrand, Daniels, and several Donald Burse, Dana Everage, Chad Venters, Cary 14 Dyer, Marc Mallinger, and Julio Calderin on the Religious Review Team (RTT). ECF No. 7 15 at 9:5-21; see also ECF No. 33 Burdsal amended his complaint to substitute the Does in for 16 (collectively known as “new Defendants”). ECF No. 33. 17 On May 21, 2025, Burdsal filed his (1) Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories 18 -Kara LeGrand (Set One) and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production by Kara LeGrand 19 (Set Two). ECF Nos. 79 and 80. Responses to those motions are due to on June 4, 2025. 20 Burdsal then filed his Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Admissions for Kara 21 LeGrand (Set One) on May 23, 2025. ECF No. 81. Any Response to this motion is due on 22 June 6, 2025. Burdsal then filed his Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories Scott 23 Davis (Set One) on May 27, 2025. ECF No. 83. Any response to this motion is due on 24 June 10, 2025. 25 Defendants now seek extensions for the responses on all four of these motions to 26 make the due dates for them be June 13, 2025. The responses require this time to 27 adequately explain defendants’ objections to the discovery, and the discussions between 28 Burdsal and counsel for defendants regarding the meet and confer issues. 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . 3 with or without motion or notice . . . if a request is made, before the original time or its 4 extension expires.” Defendants seek an extension of time to respond to the motions filed by 5 Burdsal. Good cause is present to extend 9 Day Extension To Respond To Plaintiff’s Motion 6 to Compel Answers to Interrogatories - Kara LeGrand (Set One); Plaintiff's Motion to 7 Compel Production by Kara LeGrand (Set Two); a 7 Day Extension to Respond to Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Compel Answers to Admissions for Kara LeGrand (Set One); and a 3 day 9 Extension to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories- Scott 10 Davis (Set One), thus making all of the responses due by June 13, 2025. 11 Many of the responses to these motions are going to be based on the same set of 12 objections to Burdsal’s requests for discovery discussed throughout the motions. As will be 13 explained more fully in the responses, part of the issue on these objections is that because 14 Burdsal is using a paralegal in the preparation for these documents, it has been difficult 15 for counsel for defendants to have fruitful discussions with Burdsal about his objections. 16 More time will be needed to fully explain the situation and counsel for defendants is 17 expecting to explain these unsuccessful meet and confer conversations in the first response 18 and cite it for the other three responses so that it is easier for the Court to understand and 19 to save space on the subsequent responses. Further, Burdsal’s motions to compel are 20 voluminous and require more time to respond. In addition, counsel for Defendants is 21 working on dispositive motions in two other cases1 and is working to get the first drafts of 22 those motions for review in his office by June 9, 2025, so that they will be filed on time 23 without the need for any further extensions. Counsel for defendants is also getting married 24 on June 21, 2025, and will be gone on his honeymoon on June 23-27, so counsel for 25 defendants is extremely unlikely to ask for any further extensions for the responses for the 26 motions. 27 1 Klein v. Flamm et al. - USDC 3:23-cv-00337-ART-CSD; and Johnson v. Garrett, et 28 al. - 2:24-cv-00153-APG-BNW. 1 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the extension be granted for good 2 ||cause shown. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, (9th Cir. 2010) 3 || (holding that the “district court abused its discretion in denying party’s timely motion” to 4 |}extend time because the party “demonstrated the ‘good cause’ required by Rule 6, and 5 because there was no reason to believe that [the party] was acting in bad faith or was 6 || misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension”). 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, and for good cause, Defendants request an extension of time 9 June 18, 2025, thus allowing a 9 Day Extension To Respond To Plaintiff's Motion to 10 || Compel Answers to Interrogatories - Kara LeGrand (Set One); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 11 || Production by Kara LeGrand (Set Two); a 7 Day Extension to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion 12 ||to Compel Answers to Admissions for Kara LeGrand (Set One); and a 3 day Extension to 13 || Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories- Scott Davis (Set One). 14 ||] ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, & 83. 15 DATED this 3rd day of June, 2025. 16 AARON D. FORD WW Attorney General By: /s/ Nathan M. Claus 18 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) 19 Deputy Attorney General

20 Attorneys for Defendants 21 Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion, (ECF No. 84), is granted. No further 929 extensions of time will be granted. 23 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || DATED: June 3, 2025 25 . 26 27 UNITED §TATES)MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28