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