United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 36

RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America. (Aminfar, Amin)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. (IL Bar #6228785) Matthew Colangelo (NY Bar #4228797) Peter S. Gray (DC Bar #940031) Laurie A. Gelman (VA Bar #47743) Amin Aminfar (NC Bar #36589) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (ph) 202-514-6225 / (fax) 202-514-4883 (email) amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov Michael M. Walker (AZ Bar #20315) Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 (ph) 602-514-7500 / (fax) 602-514-7760 (email) michael.walker4@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-01878-LOA PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME The United States opposes the second request for an extension of time filed by Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio ("MCSO") (Doc. 35). The United States advised MCSO before it filed its motion that the United States would consent to a reasonable extension of fourteen days to respond 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the United States' summary judgment motion. MCSO has not demonstrated good cause for its unreasonable ninety-day extension request, especially in a lawsuit that is premised on allegations of unwarranted delay. The United States filed its motion for summary judgment on September 13, 2010 (Doc. 18). Under Local Rule 56.1(d), the ordinary time for MCSO to respond was thirty days, to October 13. This Court's order granting MCSO's motion for a continuance extended that deadline by an additional twenty-one days, to November 3. MCSO's current request for an additional ninety days would give it a total of 141 days to respond to the United States' seventeen-page motion for summary judgment nearly five times the ordinary thirty-day response period allowed by the Local Rules. Rule 6 permits an extension of time "for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Although the United States is prepared to consent to a fourteen-day extension in light of MCSO's association of new counsel, MCSO has not demonstrated good cause for the lengthy ninety-day extension (and 141 days of total response time) it now seeks. As the United States noted in opposing MCSO's first request for an extension, this is a lawsuit about unreasonable delay in complying with obligations imposed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further delay prejudices the United States by undermining the rights that the United States seeks to vindicate and impeding the United States' compliance with its "congressionally mandated duty to investigate whether public programs receiving federal funds are complying with Title VI." United States v. Phoenix Union High Sch. Dist., 681 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982). In addition, Rule 6 must be applied consistent with Rule 1, which directs the Court "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see Wright & Miller, 4B Federal Practice & Procedure 1165, at 520 & n.5 (3d ed. 2002 & supp. 2010). A ninety-day extension, for a total of 141 days of total response time to the summary judgment motion, would impair the speedy determination of this action. See Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153, 157-58 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 denying a party's third request for more time to respond to a summary judgment motion, noting that the party had already been allowed fifty-seven days to oppose summary judgment, and explaining that "courts should be mindful that the rules are `intended to force parties and their attorneys to be diligent in prosecuting their causes of action.' Deadlines, in the law business, serve a useful purpose and reasonable adherence to them is to be encouraged." (quoting Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330, 331 (7th Cir. 1988))). MCSO contends that because the United States undertook exhaustive pre-suit efforts at voluntary compliance, the United States cannot now argue for compliance with reasonable litigation deadlines (Doc. 35). But the United States was required by regulation to make reasonable attempts to secure voluntary compliance before filing this lawsuit, see 28 C.F.R. 42.108(d), and the length of time required to exhaust efforts at voluntary compliance was necessitated by MCSO's dilatory tactics between March 2009 and September 2010. See generally SOF 34-73 (Doc. 19). The United States' willingness and obligation to exhaust all possible cooperative outcomes before resorting to litigation should not now be held against it by setting unreasonably expansive litigation deadlines. For these reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny MCSO's second request for an extension of time. A fourteen-day extension of time, to November 17, 2010, allows new counsel ample time after their entry of appearance on October 13 (Doc. 33) to familiarize themselves with this matter and prepare an appropriate response. Dated: November 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Amin Aminfar Roy L. Austin, Jr. (IL Bar #6228785) Matthew Colangelo (NY Bar #4228797) Peter S. Gray (DC Bar #940031) Laurie A. Gelman (VA Bar #47743) Amin Aminfar (NC Bar #36589) U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (ph) 202-514-6255 / (fax) 202-514-4883 (email) amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov Michael M. Walker (AZ Bar #20315) Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 (ph) 602-514-7500 / (fax) 602-514-7760 (email) michael.walker4@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 1, 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Cynthia Renee Estrella Polsinelli Shughart PC 1 E. Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Thomas K. Irvine Polsinelli Shughart PC 3636 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 John T. Masterson Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Joseph John Popolizio Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 William R. Jones, Jr. Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorneys for Defendants /s/ Amin Aminfar Amin Aminfar 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?