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)

Download PDF
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?