Rosenfeld v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ORDER re 26 Response ( Non Motion ), filed by Seth Rosenfeld. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/3/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

SETH ROSENFELD,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-2131 MEJ

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO ORDER GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND
IN CAMERA

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

13
14

On December 30, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Present Classified

15 Declaration In Camera and Under Seal. Dkt. Nos. 24, 25. Plaintiff has now filed an opposition in
16 response. Dkt. No. 26. Plaintiff first argues that the Court’s Order was premature because
17 Defendants specified in their Motion that Plaintiff’s response was not due until January 5, 2012.
18 However, it is Civil Local Rule 7-11(b) which sets forth the opposition filing deadline. Rule 7-11(b)
19 states that any opposition “must be filed no later than 4 days after the motion has been filed.” Thus,
20 as Defendants filed their motion on December 22, 2011, the Court’s December 30, 2011 Order was
21 not premature. As to Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, the Court finds that an in camera review will
22 not affect Plaintiff’s ability to obtain the documents, and in fact might help him, should the Court
23 make such a determination. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the Court to reconsider its Order is
24 denied.
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27 Dated: January 3, 2012
28

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge