Bonzani v. Shinseki et al
Filing
66
ORDER re 64 Ex Parte Application, signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/22/13 ORDERING the Final Pretrial Conference CONTINUED to 12/4/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; and the joint pretrial statement due 11/20/2013. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorneys
LYNN TRINKA ERNCE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 554-2720
Attorneys for the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
and Scott Hundahl, M.D.
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MATTHEW BONZANI, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 2:11-cv-00007 EFB
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
CONTINUING FINAL PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE; - - - - - - - - - ORDER
PROPOSED
v.
15
HONORABLE ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and SCOTT
HUNDAHL, M.D.,
16
Defendants.
14
17
18
Defendants Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Scott Hundahl, M.D., by and
19
through their counsel, hereby move to continue the final pretrial conference and the deadline for the
20
parties’ joint pretrial statement and, in support, represent as follows:
21
1.
At the end of the day on September 30, 2013, the appropriations act that had been
22
funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department lapsed. Absent an
23
appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis,
24
except in very limited circumstances, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the
25
protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. That exception is not deemed to include most civil cases.
26
2.
The undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney, counsel for defendants in this action, was
27
subject to the furlough effective October 1, 2013. As of today, appropriations to the Justice Department
28
have been restored, and the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney has returned to work.
29
30
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application To
Continue Final Pretrial Conference
1
1
3.
In addition to being unable to work on the joint pretrial statement in this matter since
2
October 1, 2013, the undersigned U.S. Attorney is scheduled to travel and attend training out-of-state the
3
entire week of October 21-25, 2013.
4
4.
Under these circumstances, defendants believe that good cause exists for the Court
5
continue to the final pretrial conference and the deadline for the parties’ joint pretrial statement to allow
6
the parties to work together on their joint pretrial statement, particularly in light of the Court’s order
7
denying summary judgment, which was entered on September 30, 2013, the same day that government
8
funding lapsed. Defendants propose the following dates:
Old Date
October 30, 2013
November 13, 2013
9
10
Joint Pretrial Statement Due
Final Pretrial Conference
11
5.
New Date
November 20, 2013
December 4, 2013
Since defendants are not asking the Court to modify the trial date, modification of the
12
scheduling order to continue the final pretrial conference and joint pretrial statement dates will not
13
prejudice any party, and should not negatively impact the Court’s schedule for this case, which would
14
remain as follows:
15
17
Motions in Limine Due
Oppositions to Motions in Limine
Reply Briefs to Motions in Limine
Trial Briefs Due
Trial Begins
18
6.
16
19
January 13, 2014
January 20, 2014
January 27, 2014
January 28, 2014
February 11, 2014
Defendants’ counsel notified plaintiff’s counsel by email message this morning that
defendants would be filing this continuance request.
Respectfully submitted,
20
21
DATED: October 17, 2013
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
22
By:
23
24
25
/s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce
LYNN TRINKA ERNCE
Assistant United States Attorney
ORDER
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
October 2 2
Date: __________________ 2013
2
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
28
29
30
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application To
Continue Final Pretrial Conference
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?