Opinion
2:21-cv-00073
02-09-2023
SHONDOLYN R. BLEVINS, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendant.
FOSTER GARVEY PC ANDREA L. BRADFORD, ADRIAN URQUHART WINDER, Attorneys for Plaintiff. NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney NICKOLAS BOHL, Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Washington Attorneys for Defendant.
FOSTER GARVEY PC ANDREA L. BRADFORD, ADRIAN URQUHART WINDER, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney NICKOLAS BOHL, Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Washington Attorneys for Defendant.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JAMES L. ROBART United States District Court Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The parties agree that a three-week extension of the deadline for Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is warranted. Specifically, Ms. Blevins has not had an opportunity to speak to her court-appointed pro bono counsel following review of the motion, due to restrictions at the Bureau of Prisons facility where she is located in West Virginia. Counsel for ATF has no objection to an extension of the deadline.
This motion is supported by the Declaration of Andrea Bradford (“Bradford Decl.”).
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Court's December 12, 2022 order set a deadline of January 17, 2023 for ATF's motion for summary judgment and a February 13, 2023 deadline for Ms. Blevins' response. Dkt. 54. ATF filed its motion for summary judgment on January 17, 2023. Dkt. 55.
Counsel for Ms. Blevins mailed a copy of the motion to Ms. Blevins on January 19, 2023. Bradford Decl. ¶ 2. Counsel for Ms. Blevins has repeatedly attempted to schedule calls with Ms. Blevins. She is currently in special housing in a facility in West Virginia, and due to the restrictions at the facility and the limited availability of staff to facilitate calls, scheduling calls has been difficult. Id. ¶ 3. Ms. Blevins' Bureau of Prisons counselor has previously noted in scheduling calls that the facility may unexpectedly cancel calls due to health and safety issues at the facility. Id. ¶ 3.
Ms. Blevins's counsel was able to speak to Ms. Blevins briefly on January 25, 2023, but Ms. Blevins had not yet received a copy of the motion. Id. ¶ 4. The following day, January 26, 2023, counsel reached out to Ms. Blevins' BOP counselor to schedule a follow-up call. Id. ¶ 4. Counsel reached out again on January 27, 2023, and January 31, 2023, and received no response. Id. ¶ 4. Counsel followed up again on February 1, 2023, and was told for the first time that two weeks' notice was required to schedule calls with inmates. Id. ¶ 5. The BOP counselor informed counsel that the only available time for an attorney call was 6 a.m. PST to 8 a.m. PST on February 9, 2023. Counsel made herself available for the window identified by BOP, but did not receive a call. Id. ¶ 5.
Later in the morning on February 9, 2023, counsel followed up with BOP asking to schedule a call as soon as possible and informed them of the February 13, 2023 court deadline, but as of the time of filing, counsel has not received any response. Id. ¶ 5. Counsel conferred with the Assistant U.S. Attorney in this case via email on February 9, 2023, and ATF does not object to the requested extension of the deadline. Id. ¶ 7.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Good Cause Exists to Extend the Deadline.
The court's case schedule may be amended for “good cause and with the judge's consent.” LCR 16(b)(6). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment)). Pursuant to LCR 7(j), an unforeseen emergency exists justifying same-day relief.
Plaintiff's counsel has been diligent in seeking to speak with her client. See Bradford Decl. ¶¶ 36. Ms. Blevins should have an opportunity to review ATF's dispositive motion and speak with her attorney before filing an opposition. Despite counsel's best efforts, Ms. Blevins has not had that opportunity. Ms. Blevins accordingly seeks an additional three weeks to file her opposition due to the limited availability to schedule calls, BOP's statement that two weeks' notice is required to schedule attorney calls, and to avoid the need to seek an additional extension.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the parties jointly request that the Court extend the deadline to file her opposition to ATF's summary judgment motion from February 13, 2023, to March 6, 2023.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH PARTIES OF RECORD.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.