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)

Download PDF
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?