1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 STEVE COLEMAN, Case No. 3:23-CV-00606-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 6 v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., [ECF No. 55] 8 Defendants.

9

10 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file their 11 opposition to Plaintiff Steve Coleman’s (“Coleman”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF 12 No. 55.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion. 13 Coleman filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2025. (ECF No. 53.) 14 As Defendants concede, their opposition was due on or before November 20, 2025. (ECF 15 No. 55 at 2); see also LR 7-2(b). However, Defendants failed to file their opposition by 16 that deadline. (ECF No. 55 at 2.) According to defense counsel, the deadline was 17 overlooked because he unexpectedly inherited other matters with urgent deadlines after 18 a colleague unexpectedly resigned. (Id.) However, a few days after the deadline defense 19 counsel realized his oversight and filed the instant motion. (Id.) 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that courts “may, for good 21 cause,” extend deadlines “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to 22 act because of excusable neglect.” “This rule, like all the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, 23 ‘[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are 24 tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 25 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Rodgers v. Watt,

(9th Cir. 1983)). 26 Here, defense counsel unexpectedly inherited other cases with urgent deadlines 27 after his colleague resigned. (ECF No. 55 at 2.) Furthermore, defense counsel caught his 1| (/d.) The Court finds this qualifies as excusable neglect. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendants’ motion for leave to file their opposition 3 | to Coleman’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 55), is GRANTED. The Clerk is 4| directed to FILE Defendants’ opposition to Coleman’s motion for summary judgment. 5 | (ECF No. 55-2.) 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Coleman shall file his reply to Defendants’ 7 | Opposition by Wednesday, December 17, 2025. 8 DATED: November 26, 2025 TT □ 9 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28