Almy et al v. United States Department of Defense et al

Filing 85

MOTION to Continue the Hearing Date for Plaintiff Almy's Motion for a Protective Order filed by Department of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, Robert M. Gates, United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Filed on 9/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 DECLARATION OF RYAN B. PARKER 2 3 1. 4 I am a Trial Attorney for the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, and am counsel for the Federal Defendants. 5 6 2. 7 I have personal knowledge of the contents of this declaration, and I could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so. 8 9 3. On September 6, 2012, while the parties prepared their case management statement, 10 defense counsel information Plaintiff Almy’s counsel that Defendants planned to file an 11 administrative motion seeking a one week continuance of the hearing date for Plaintiff 12 Almy’s Motion for a Protective Order from Thursday, October 4 until Thursday, October 13 11. 14 15 4. 16 By email sent the same day, Plaintiff Almy’s counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiff Almy does not object to Defendants’ administrative motion for a continuance or 17 the schedule proposed therein. 18 19 5. The parties then notified the Court in their case management statement that Defendants 20 would be seeking a continuance of the hearing date for Almy’s motion for a protective 21 order until October 11, 2012, and that Plaintiff Almy does not oppose the continuance. 22 Dkt No. 82. 23 24 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on September 13, 2012, in Washington, D.C. 26 27 /S/ Ryan B. Parker RYAN B. PARKER 28 DECLARATION OF RYAN B. PARKER, Almy v. United States Department of Defense, No. 3:10-CV-5627 (RS) -1 -

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?