Turner v. United States Department of the Treasury
Filing
32
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Ex Parte Application Requesting Modification of the Briefing Schedule, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/17. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRUCE ERVIN TURNER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network,
Defendant.
No. 1:15-cv-00007-DAD-SKO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING
MODIFICATION OF THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
(Doc. No. 31)
17
18
19
On July 10, 2017, defendant filed an ex parte application requesting modification of the
20
briefing schedule set forth by the court on April 21, 2017. (Doc. No. 31.) According to the
21
court’s minute order, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was to be filed by July 13, 2017,
22
with plaintiff’s opposition due August 4, 2017, and any reply thereto due by August 11, 2017.
23
(Doc. No. 30.) Defendant maintains that “[d]ue to the unavailability of a FinCEN official who is
24
required to review and sign a declaration in support of defendant’[s] motion,” modification of the
25
briefing schedule is warranted. (Doc. No. 31 at 2, ¶ 4.) Defendant also maintains that because
26
plaintiff is incarcerated, it is not reasonably practicable to modify the scheduling order by
27
stipulation, and that the application is not submitted for an improper purpose. (Id. at ¶¶ 5–6.)
28
The court notes that this is not defendant’s first ex parte motion seeking an extension of time. On
1
1
July 27, 2015, the court granted defendant’s ex parte application for extension of time to respond
2
to plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 13.) While the court may in its discretion grant such
3
applications, “[e]xcept for one such initial extension, ex parte applications for extension of time
4
are not ordinarily granted.” L.R. 144(c).
5
Nonetheless, for the reasons represented by defendant’s counsel and because the requested
6
extension does not affect any trial or hearing dates, the court will grant defendant’s ex parte
7
application requesting modification of the briefing schedule. Accordingly, the court vacates the
8
previously set briefing schedule (Doc. No. 30), and resets these dates as requested by defendant in
9
its application as follows:
10
1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be filed by July 27, 2017;
11
2. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due August 18,
12
13
14
15
16
2017; and
3. Defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, is due August 25, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?