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)

Download PDF
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?