Opinion
Case No. CV 09-0037-CW
05-08-2013
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
JAMES P. BENNETT EUGENE ILLOVSKY STACEY M. SPRENKEL BEN PATTERSON MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EUGENE ILLOVSKY Attorneys for Plaintiffs STUART DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG United States Attorney ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Branch Director JOSHUA E. GARDNER Senior Counsel BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN KIMBERLY L. HERB LILY SARA FAREL RYAN B. PARKER JUDSON O. LITTLETON Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Attorneys for Defendants
STUART DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
JOSHUA E. GARDNER
District of Columbia Bar No. 478049
BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN
District of Columbia Bar No. 981555
KIMBERLY L. HERB
Illinois Bar No. 6296725
LILY SARA FAREL
North Carolina Bar No. 35273
RYAN B. PARKER
Utah Bar No. 11742
JUDSON O. LITTLETON
Texas Bar No. 24065635
Trial Attorneys
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-7583
Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
E-mail: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for DEFENDANTS
STIPULATION TO AMEND
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Civil L. R. 6-2, the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move to amend the current pretrial order, Dkt. 481 and enlarge the deadline for the final pretrial conference in this case, currently scheduled for July 10, 2013 to July 17, 2013, as well as other deadlines in the Court's Order for Pretrial Preparation, as explained below. In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this stipulation is supported by the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants, filed herewith, and a proposed order below.
1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner establishes good cause for the requested enlargements of time as follows:
a. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment.moving the final pretrial conference to July 17, 2013, and counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that they consented but would not agree to move the trial date.
b. On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed what they contend is a fully dispositive cross-motion for summary judgment.
c. Those motions are fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on those motions on March 14, 2013.
d. The parties' summary judgment motions raise a number of issues under the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution, and the Court's resolution of the parties' cross-motions may greatly streamline, if not completely eliminate, the need for a trial.
e. Given the breadth of issues raised in the parties' cross-motions, however, Defendants believe that it would be more efficient to prepare for trial after the Court has resolved those outstanding summary judgment motions. For example, the issues remaining after the Court's resolution of summary judgment likely will inform the parties' decisions on which exhibits, witnesses, and deposition designations, if any, that they identify, and likely will greatly inform the need, if any, for pretrial motions in limine.
f. Counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs on May 2, 2013 to inquire if they would agree to enlarge certain of the pretrial dates, including
2. Currently, pursuant to the Order for Pretrial Preparation, the parties must exchange copies of all exhibits, serve briefs on all significant disputed issues of law, including procedural and evidentiary issues, and identify all deposition designations, interrogatory responses, and responses to requests for admissions by June 12, 2013. Because summary judgment is still pending, the parties believe that moving these submissions to June 27, 2013 would provide them with time necessary to efficiently prepare these documents, as it would allow the parties to tailor the documents to the claims remaining in this case, if any, after the Court resolves the outstanding summary judgment motions.
3. In addition, the meeting of counsel contemplated by the Order for Pretrial Preparation is currently scheduled for June 19, 2013. The parties request moving the meeting of counsel to July 3, 2013. This will give the parties time to meaningfully review the materials exchanged on June 27, 2013, and should lead to a more productive meeting of counsel. The parties further request moving the filing of the documents contemplated in the Order for Pretrial Preparation, paragraph 3, from June 26, 2013 to July 8, 2013, and moving the final pretrial conference from July 10, 2013 to July 17, 2013. The parties do not seek to move the current schedule for the trial.
4. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court amend the pretrial scheduling order the pretrial deadlines as follows:
To the extent the Court desires to move the trial date, however, Defendants do not object to moving the trial date. Plaintiffs strongly oppose moving the trial date.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Current Deadline ¦Proposed Deadline ¦ +--------------------------------------+------------------+-------------------¦ ¦Exchange of papers described in Order ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for Pretrial Preparation ¶ 1, with the¦June 12, 2013 ¦June 26, 2013 ¦ ¦exception that hard copies of exhibits¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦need not be exchanged. ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Meeting of counsel pursuant to Order for Pretrial ¦June 19, ¦July 3, ¦ ¦Preparation ¶ 2. ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Filing of papers described in Order for Pretrial ¦June 26, ¦July 8, ¦ ¦Preparation ¶ 3. ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Final pretrial conference. ¦July 10, ¦July 17, ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Trial to begin (currently scheduled for 20 days). ¦July 29, ¦July 29, ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The parties respectfully request that the Court enlarge the time for certain of the pretrial dates in the manner described above.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES P. BENNETT
EUGENE ILLOVSKY
STACEY M. SPRENKEL
BEN PATTERSON
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: ____________________________
EUGENE ILLOVSKY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs STUART DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
____________________________
JOSHUA E. GARDNER
Senior Counsel
BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN
KIMBERLY L. HERB
LILY SARA FAREL
RYAN B. PARKER
JUDSON O. LITTLETON
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Attorneys for Defendants PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED , except that the pretrial will be held on Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION
I, Joshua E. Gardner, am the ECF User filing this Stipulated Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document from Docket. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Eugene Illovsky has concurred in this filing.
____________________________
Joshua E. Gardner
Attorney for Defendants