1 A AAtRtoOrNne Dy .G FeOneRrDal 2 SAMUEL L. PEZONE JR. (Bar No. 15978) 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) 486-4070 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JAMELLE RUSSELL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00094-ART-CSD 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 12 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 13 MORDA, et al., [FIRST REQUEST] 14 Defendants. 15 Defendants, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and 16 Samuel L. Pezone Jr., Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the 17 Attorney General, hereby request an extension of time to file their Motion to Dismiss. This 18 is Defendants’ first requested extension of the subject deadline. 19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY 20 I. APPLICABLE LAW 21 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . 22 with or without motion or notice . . . if a request is made, before the original time or its 23 extension expires,” or “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act 24 because of excusable neglect.” 25 To demonstrate good cause, the party seeking modification must show “that, even in 26 the exercise of due diligence, [the party was] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the 27 order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV-1003997-MMM-JEMX,

, at *2 (C.D. 28 Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,

, 1087 1 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992)). 2 Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of 3 prejudice is “not a prerequisite.”

4 In determining whether any parties’ neglect is excusable, courts of this circuit weigh 5 four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay 6 and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including 7 whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving 8 party's conduct was in good faith.” Pincay v. Andrews,

(9th Cir. 2004); 9 Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,

, 10 395 (1993). 11 II. ARGUMENT 12 Defendants seek an extension of time to file their Motion to Dismiss the operative 13 Complaint. Pursuant to ECF No. 17, the deadline to file a response to the Complaint is 14 August 29, 2025. Good cause and excusable neglect are present to extend this deadline until 15 September 29, 2025. 16 On August 24, 2025, the State of Nevada’s computer systems suffered a large-scale 17 cyberattack. This attack resulted in all computer systems being taken offline, including 18 the Office of the Attorney General’s VPN access and case management systems. Currently, 19 these systems remain unavailable, which, to date, has prevented undersigned counsel 20 from finalizing a draft of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the operative Complaint. There 21 is currently no set date when these systems will be fully restored. Given that the outage 22 has lasted over a week and there is currently no set date when access will be restored, a 23 lengthier extension is requested to obviate the need for several smaller extensions. 24 A thirty (30) day extension to September 29, 2025, will allow undersigned counsel 25 adequate time to finalize Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff would likely not be 26 prejudiced by this extension, as Defendants are not asking for a lengthy extension. 27 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this extension be granted for good 28 cause shown. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 1260 (9th Cir. 2010) 1 || (holding that the “district court abused its discretion in denying party’s timely motion” to 2 ||extend time because the party “demonstrated the ‘good cause’ required by Rule 6, and 3 because there was no reason to believe that [the party] was acting in bad faith or was 4 || misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension”). 5 CONCLUSION 6 Good cause and excusable neglect exist for a brief extension of the deadline to 7 ||respond to the Complaint. This is the first request presented by Defendants seeking an 8 extension of the deadline. There will be no prejudice to the Plaintiff in granting a thirty- 9 || day extension of time until September 29, 2025. 10 DATED this 3rd day of September, 2025. 11 AARON D. FORD Attorney General By: /s/ Samuel L. Pezone Jr. 13 SAMUEL L. PEZONE JR. (Bar No. 15978) A Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants 16 17 IIIT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||IDATED: September 4, 2025. CS ox 20 Craig S. Denney 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28