Pickard v. Department of Justice
Filing
160
ORDER re briefing schedule re 159 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE filed by Department of Justice. Reset Deadlines as to 140 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment , 152 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Reply brief and Responses due by 7/23/2012. Replies due by 8/20/2012. Motion Hearing reset for 9/28/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/12/2012. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2012)
Case3:06-cv-00185-CRB Document159 Filed07/11/12 Page1 of 2
1
2
3
4
Mark Rumold (SBN 279060)
901 Cortland Ave. Apt B
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415)694-1639
mark.rumold@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
William Pickard
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)
Chief, Civil Division
NEILL T. TSENG (CSBN 220348)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate A venue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-7155
FAX: (415) 436-6927
neill. tseng@usdoj .gov
12
13
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20
21
22
)
)
WILLIAM PICKARD,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
C 06-00185 CRB
~
)
SECOND STIPULATION RE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
___________________________)
23
Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:
24
The Court previously entered a stipulated order changing the summary judgment briefing
25
schedule based on the absence from office due to medical reasons ofDEA attorney William
26
Little, who is the agency counsel in this case and the declarant supporting defendant's third
27
motion for summary judgment. Mr. Little originally anticipated returning to work on June 25,
28
2012. However, defendant's counsel, who was himself out of office from June 26, 2012, until
SECOND STIP. RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
C 06-00185 CRB
Case3:06-cv-00185-CRB Document159 Filed07/11/12 Page2 of 2
1
July 5, 2012, was informed by Mr. Little on July 10, 2012, that Mr. Little had been unable to
2
work for the past three weeks due to medical reasons and had returned to the office on July 9,
3
2012.
4
Defendant anticipates filing a supplemental declaration by Mr. Little in support of
5
defendant's opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment/reply in support of
6
defendant's third motion for summary judgment. Given Mr. Little's unforeseen extended
7
absence from work, however, defendant is unable to prepare and file that supplemental
8
declaration or the associated opposition/reply brief by the current deadline of July 13, 2012.
9
Accordingly, at defendant's request, the parties have stipulated to modify the remainder of the
10
summary judgment briefing schedule and hearing date as follows:
11
12
July 23, 2012: Deadline for filing defendant's reply brief and opposition to plaintiff's
cross-motion for summary judgment
13
August 20, 2012: Deadline for filing plaintiff's reply brief
14
September 21, 2012: Hearing on parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
28
15
16
DATED: July 11,2012
By:
17
Is/ Mark Rumold
MARKRUMOLD
Attorney for Plaintiff
18
19
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
20
.
21
DATED: July 11,2012
22
By:
\1\RA.L-{
~
C
NEILL T. TSENG
'(
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
23
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
HONORABLECHARLESR.BREYER
Breyer
arles R.
UNITED STATES DISTRICThJUDGE
Judge C
NO
RT
28
H
ER
R NIA
DATED: July 12, 2012
LI
27
ERED
O ORD
IT IS S
FO
UNIT
ED
26
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
S
25
A
24
C
N
SECOND STIP. RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] OF
D I S T I C T ORDER
R
C 06-00185 CRB
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?