Opinion
2:22-cv-00610-JCM-BNW
10-21-2022
PAUL JEFFREY VOLL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DAVID N. KARPEL, individually, DOES 1 through 100; and ROES 1 through 100; inclusive, Defendants. v.
BRIAN M. BOYNTON Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR. Acting Director Torts Branch, Civil Division ANDREA W. MCCARTHY Senior Trial Counsel Torts Branch, Civil Division JACOB A. BENNETT Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorneys for Defendants the United States and David Karpel MELANIE HILL LAW PLLC MELANIE A. HILL Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Jeffrey Voll
BRIAN M. BOYNTON Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, JR. Acting Director Torts Branch, Civil Division ANDREA W. MCCARTHY Senior Trial Counsel Torts Branch, Civil Division JACOB A. BENNETT Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Attorneys for Defendants the United States and David Karpel
MELANIE HILL LAW PLLC MELANIE A. HILL Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Jeffrey Voll
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO USA AND KARPEL'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS [ECF NOS. 12 AND 13] (SECOND REQUEST)
NOW COME the Plaintiff, PAUL JEFFREY VOLL (“Plaintiff'), by and through his attorneys, Melanie A. Hill and Melanie Hill Law PLLC, and the Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DAVID N. KARPEL, by and through their attorney Jacob A. Bennett, who hereby stipulate that the deadlines for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant USA and Karpel's Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 12 and 13] and Defendant USA and Karpel's deadlines to reply to Plaintiff's responsive filing be extended pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1.
This is the parties' second request for an extension of deadlines. The parties originally filed a stipulation [ECF No. 10] that extended Defendant United States' response deadline to align with Defendant Karpel's. That stipulation would have also extended Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the instant Motions to Dismiss. However, the Court only granted Defendants' extension to respond to the Complaint and denied the request to extend the briefing schedule without prejudice. See Order [ECF No. 11]. The Court then instructed the parties to file a separate stipulation extending Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss to be heard by the District Judge. Id. In support of this Stipulation and request, the parties state as follows:
1. Defendant USA and Karpel filed their Motions to Dismiss on October 7, 2022 [ECF Nos. 12 and 13].
2. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the Motions to Dismiss is October 21, 2022.
3. Counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the government in the local U.S. Attorneys' office have 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 Plaintiff 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 have determined that a motion will be necessary to allow undersigned counsel for Plaintiff to be added to the Protective Order in the underlying criminal case so that discovery may be reviewed by counsel for Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's response deadline to November 18, 2022. The parties have further stipulated to allow Defendants USA and Karpel until December 19, 2022 to file their responses to Plaintiff's filing.
6. 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.