Opinion
2:22-cv-00328-JCM-EJY
11-18-2022
ERNESTO MANUEL GONZALEZ, an individual, JAMES PATRICK GILLESPIE, an individual, CESAR VAQUERA MORALES, an individual, DIEGO CHAVEZ GARCIA, an individual, and BRADLEY CAMPOS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DAVID N. KARPEL, individually, DOES 1 through 100; and ROES 1 through 100; inclusive, Defendants.
BRIAN M. BOYNTON Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR., Director ANDREA W. MCCARTHY, Acting Assistant Director MELANIE HILL LAW PLLC MELANIE A. HILL Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ernesto Manuel Gonzalez, James Patrick Gillespie, Cesar Vaquera Morales, Diego Chavez Garcia, and Glenn S. Greene Bradley Campos GLENN S. GREENE Senior Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorneys for Defendants the United States and David Karpel
BRIAN M. BOYNTON Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division
C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR., Director
ANDREA W. MCCARTHY, Acting Assistant Director
MELANIE HILL LAW PLLC
MELANIE A. HILL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ernesto Manuel Gonzalez, James Patrick Gillespie, Cesar Vaquera Morales, Diego Chavez Garcia, and Glenn S. Greene Bradley Campos
GLENN S. GREENE
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation
Attorneys for Defendants the United States and David Karpel
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO USA AND KARPEL'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS [ECF NOS. 13 AND 14]
(THIRD REQUEST)
NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, ERNESTO MANUEL GONZALEZ (“GONZALEZ”), JAMES PATRICK GILLESPIE (“GILLESPIE”), CESAR VAQUERA MORALES (“MORALES”), DIEGO CHAVEZ GARCIA (“GARCIA”), and BRADLEY CAMPOS (“CAMPOS”) (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Melanie A. Hill and Melanie Hill Law PLLC, and Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DAVID N. KARPEL, by and through their attorney, Glenn Greene, who hereby stipulate that the deadlines for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant USA and Karpel's Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 13 and 14] and Defendant USA and Karpel's deadlines to reply be extended pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1.
This is the third request for an extension of the deadlines. The first request was by stipulation to extend the deadlines to allow the USA and Karpel's deadlines to be aligned. The second request was by stipulation to extend the deadlines to allow Plaintiffs to file a motion to be added to the Protective Order in the underlying criminal case. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties state as follows:
1. Defendant USA and Karpel filed their Motions to Dismiss on September 12, 2022 [ECF Nos. 13 and 14].
2. Pursuant to the Order granting the second stipulation, Plaintiffs deadline to respond to the Motions to Dismiss is November 18, 2022.
3. Prior to filing the second stipulation request, counsel for the parties conferred to attempt to resolve counsel for Plaintiffs' request to be added to the Protective Order in place in the underlying criminal case so that Plaintiffs may share the criminal discovery with undersigned counsel. The discovery is necessary to further plead the complaint in this case in response to arguments made in the currently pending motions.
4. Counsel for Plaintiffs has also conferred with the local U.S. Attorneys' office regarding the same. Counsel have determined that a motion will be necessary to allow counsel for Plaintiffs to be added to the Protective Order in the underlying criminal case so that discovery may be reviewed by counsel for Plaintiffs and used to further plead the complaint in this case. It is also undersigned counsel's understanding that the United States has no objection to Plaintiff's counsel being added to the protective order upon further motion and order of this court.
5. To allow this motion to be filed and allow counsel to review the underlying criminal discovery for purposes of prosecuting this civil case and further respond to the pending Motions to Dismiss, the parties have stipulated to extend Plaintiffs' response deadline to December 13, 2022. The parties have further stipulated to allow Defendants USA and Karpel until January 20, 2022 to file their replies.
6. After filing the second stipulation, counsel was delayed in filing the motion to be added to the protective order because she and her entire family were ill and she had to take off work to care for herself and her young child. This additional request is to allow Plaintiffs to file the motion to be added to the protective order and obtain and review the criminal discovery to allow Plaintiffs to adequately respond to the Motions to Dismiss. This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely to allow sufficient time to allow Plaintiffs' counsel to be added to the protective Order in the underlying criminal case, review the criminal discovery, and respond to the USA and Karpel's Motions to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the deadlines as stipulated to herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.