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

Filing 72

ORDER re 70 granting Stipulation to Extend Time to File Answer. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 03/23/2010. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2010)

1 2 3 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

IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON District of Columbia Bar No. 496433 Senior Counsel Telephone: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] KIMBERLY L. HERB Illinois Bar No. 6296725 Trial Attorney Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND ORDER Case No. CV 09-0037-CW

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move to extend the time for Defendants' to file an answer until March 17, 2010. The requested enlargement will not have any effect on the present schedule for the case, and will require Defendants to serve an answer in advance of the Settlement
NO. C 09-37 CW MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWER

1

1 2 3 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

Conference scheduled for March 19, 2010. In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this motion is supported by the Declaration of Kimberly L. Herb, counsel for Defendants, filed herewith and a proposed order below. 1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Kimberly L. Herb establishes good

cause for the requested enlargement as follows: a. Pursuant to the Court's Order of February 2, 2010, Defendants must file their

Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") on March 12, 2010. (Dkt. No. 64.) b. Defendants are in the process of responding to allegations in the Plaintiffs'

Complaint. Because of the length of the Complaint and the fact that it concerns events that span more than fifty years, Defendants have spent a significant amount of time responding to the factual allegations. This, in turn, has delayed the review of the Defendants' responses within their respective agencies. c. Absent an enlargement of time, Defendants will be substantially prejudiced in

responding to the Complaint because Defendants have not had the opportunity to complete its necessary review process within the Department of Justice and the Defendant agencies. 2. a. There have seven previous modifications in this case. On March 24, 2009, the parties stipulated to a continuance of the case management

conference to June 16, 2009, and the deadline for the joint case management statement to June 9, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the Court entered an Order establishing the dates to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 15.) b. On May 11, 2009, the parties stipulated to enlarge the period for Defendants'

response to the Complaint in the form of a dispositive motion by thirty-two days--from May 11, 2009 to June 12, 2009--and a corresponding adjustment of the briefing schedule and hearing
NO. C 09-37 CW MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWER

2

1 2 3 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

date. On May 12, 2009, the Court entered an Order establishing the briefing deadlines and hearing date to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 19.) c. On June 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to File

Response to Complaint until June 30, 2009 on the ground that Ms. Wolverton had assumed primary responsibility for the case sixteen days prior to the deadline for submission of a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed the extension request. The Court entered an Order granting the requested extension on June 12, 2009. (Dkt. No. 27.) d. On September 10, 2009, at the behest of counsel for Plaintiffs, the parties

stipulated to an enlargement of the briefing schedule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and a continuance on the initial case management conference. On September 15, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting the briefing and hearing schedule to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 42.) e. On October 28, 2009, again at the behest of counsel for the Plaintiffs, the parties

stipulated to a continuance of the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the initial case management conference. On October 29, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting the continuance of the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the initial case management conference as the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 50.) f. On January 27, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Enlarge Time to File Answer

until April 19, 2010 on the ground that Defendants wanted to review discovery documents that pertained to the factual allegations in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the extension request. On February 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting in part the Defendants' Motion to Extend Time, extending the time to file the answer until March 12, 2010.

NO. C 09-37 CW MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWER

3

1 2 3 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

g.

On February 18, 2010, at the behest of counsel for Defendants, the parties

stipulated to extend Defendants' time to respond to discovery requests and produce documents. On February 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting the parties' stipulation. (Dkt. No. 66.) 3. The requested enlargement will not have any effect on the present schedule for the

case, and will require Defendants to serve an answer in advance of the Settlement Conference scheduled for March 19, 2010. *** In order to allow Defendants sufficient time to prepare their Answer, the parties hereby respectfully request that the Court enlarge the time in which to file the answer to March 17, 2010.

Dated: March 12, 2010 GORDON P. ERSPAMER TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY ADRIANO HRVATIN KIMBERLY L. TAYLOR STACEY M. SPRENKEL Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] By: /s/ Timothy W. Blakely

Respectfully submitted, IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON Senior Counsel By: /s/ Kimberly L. Herb KIMBERLY L. HERB Illinois Bar No. 6296725 Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NO. C 09-37 CW MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWER

4

1 2 3 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 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE ANSWER

ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/23/2010 ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

5

NO. C 09-37 CW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT