Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 526

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 525 Stipulation to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)

13

STUART DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
JOSHUA E. GARDNER
District of Columbia Bar No. 478049
BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN
District of Columbia Bar No. 981555
KIMBERLY L. HERB
Illinois Bar No. 6296725
LILY SARA FAREL
North Carolina Bar No. 35273
RYAN B. PARKER
Utah Bar No. 11742
JUDSON O. LITTLETON
Texas Bar No. 24065635
Trial Attorneys
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

14

Attorneys for DEFENDANTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

OAKLAND DIVISION

18
19

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

Case No. CV 09-0037-CW

v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.,

STIPULATION TO AMEND
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

0

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Civil L. R. 6-2, the parties, by and

2

through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move to amend the current pretrial order, Dkt.

3

481 and enlarge the deadline for the final pretrial conference in this case, currently scheduled for

4

July 10, 2013 to July 17, 2013, as well as other deadlines in the Court’s Order for Pretrial

5

Preparation, as explained below. In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this stipulation is

6

supported by the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants, filed herewith, and a

7

proposed order below.

8
9

1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner establishes good cause
for the requested enlargements of time as follows:

10

a. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

11

b. On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed what they contend is a fully dispositive

12
13
14
15

cross-motion for summary judgment.
c. Those motions are fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on those motions
on March 14, 2013.
d. The parties’ summary judgment motions raise a number of issues under the

16

Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution, and the

17

Court’s resolution of the parties’ cross-motions may greatly streamline, if not

18

completely eliminate, the need for a trial.

19

e. Given the breadth of issues raised in the parties’ cross-motions, however,

20

Defendants believe that it would be more efficient to prepare for trial after the

21

Court has resolved those outstanding summary judgment motions. For

22

example, the issues remaining after the Court’s resolution of summary

23

judgment likely will inform the parties’ decisions on which exhibits, witnesses,

24

and deposition designations, if any, that they identify, and likely will greatly

25

inform the need, if any, for pretrial motions in limine.

26
27

f. Counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs on May 2, 2013 to
inquire if they would agree to enlarge certain of the pretrial dates, including

28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

1

moving the final pretrial conference to July 17, 2013, and counsel for Plaintiffs

2

indicated that they consented but would not agree to move the trial date.

3

2. Currently, pursuant to the Order for Pretrial Preparation, the parties must exchange

4

copies of all exhibits, serve briefs on all significant disputed issues of law, including

5

procedural and evidentiary issues, and identify all deposition designations,

6

interrogatory responses, and responses to requests for admissions by June 12, 2013.

7

Because summary judgment is still pending, the parties believe that moving these

8

submissions to June 27, 2013 would provide them with time necessary to efficiently

9

prepare these documents, as it would allow the parties to tailor the documents to the

10

claims remaining in this case, if any, after the Court resolves the outstanding summary

11

judgment motions.

12

3. In addition, the meeting of counsel contemplated by the Order for Pretrial Preparation

13

is currently scheduled for June 19, 2013. The parties request moving the meeting of

14

counsel to July 3, 2013. This will give the parties time to meaningfully review the

15

materials exchanged on June 27, 2013, and should lead to a more productive meeting

16

of counsel. The parties further request moving the filing of the documents

17

contemplated in the Order for Pretrial Preparation, paragraph 3, from June 26, 2013 to

18

July 8, 2013, and moving the final pretrial conference from July 10, 2013 to July 17,

19

2013. The parties do not seek to move the current schedule for the trial. 1

20

4. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
amend the pretrial scheduling order the pretrial deadlines as follows:

21
22
23
24
25

Event
Exchange of papers described in Order

Current Deadline
June 12, 2013

Proposed Deadline
June 26, 2013

for Pretrial Preparation ¶ 1, with the
exception that hard copies of exhibits

26
27

1

To the extent the Court desires to move the trial date, however, Defendants do not object
to moving the trial date. Plaintiffs strongly oppose moving the trial date.

28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

2

1

need not be exchanged.

2

Meeting of counsel pursuant to Order

3

for Pretrial Preparation ¶ 2.

4

Filing of papers described in Order for

5

Pretrial Preparation ¶ 3.

6

June 19, 2013

July 3, 2013

June 26, 2013

July 8, 2013

Final pretrial conference.

July 10, 2013

July 17, 2013

7

Trial to begin (currently scheduled for

July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

8

20 days).

9
10

* * * *
The parties respectfully request that the Court enlarge the time for certain of the pretrial

11

dates in the manner described above.

12

Dated: May 3, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES P. BENNETT
EUGENE ILLOVSKY
STACEY M. SPRENKEL
BEN PATTERSON
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

STUART DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By: /s/ Eugene Illovsky___
EUGENE ILLOVSKY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/Joshua E. Gardner
JOSHUA E. GARDNER
Senior Counsel
BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN
KIMBERLY L. HERB
LILY SARA FAREL
RYAN B. PARKER
JUDSON O. LITTLETON
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

26
27

Attorneys for Defendants

28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

3

1
2
3

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED , except that the pretrial will
be held on Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
5/8/2013
Dated: ________________
_________________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

4

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

1
2
3

I, Joshua E. Gardner, am the ECF User filing this Stipulated Administrative Motion to
Remove Incorrectly Filed Document from Docket. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I
hereby attest that Eugene Illovsky has concurred in this filing.

4
5

Dated: May 3, 2013

/s/ Joshua E. Gardner
Joshua E. Gardner

6
7

Attorney for Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 09-37 CW
STIP. TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

5