Roule v. Panetta

Filing 36

ORDER CONCERNING DEFENDANTS PENDING 21 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/13/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

WALTER R. ROULE,

5
6
7
8

No. C 10-04632 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER CONCERNING
DEFENDANT’S
PENDING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
DAVID H. PETRAEUS, Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency,
Defendant.

9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

On April 4, 2011, Defendant Leon E. Panetta,1 Director of the

12

Central Intelligence Agency, moved to dismiss this action.

13

4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a partial response, but did not include

14

certain papers, apparently due to the sensitivity of the materials

15

and the need for Defendant to review the materials for security

16

purposes prior to their filing.

17

the Court stated that the parties were engaged in negotiations to

18

establish a procedure for pre-filing review and intended to enter

19

into a stipulation to set new deadlines for briefing related to the

20

pending motion.

21

On May

Defendant’s May 11, 2011 notice to

After the parties failed to enter such a stipulation and

22

delayed the completion of briefing on Defendant’s motion to

23

dismiss, the Court issued an order on July 5, 2011, providing

24

instructions to the parties, taking account of the security

25

concerns.

Pursuant to that order, Defendant submitted his reply

26
27
1

28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), David H.
Patraeus is substituted as Defendant, in place of Leon E. Panetta.

1

brief on September 9, 2011.

2

with the Court’s order that he submit an approved version of

3

Plaintiff’s response or, alternatively, propose a different method

4

to ensure that the Court is able fully to review Plaintiff’s

5

response.

6

his Certificate of Service, confirming that he submitted his

7

complete response to Defendant.

8

has had Plaintiff’s complete response to the motion to dismiss

9

since August 12, 2011.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

However, Defendant has not complied

The Court is aware that Plaintiff was delayed in filing

However, it appears that Defendant

On or before September 26, 2011, Defendant shall submit to the

11

Court an approved version of Plaintiff’s response or propose an

12

alternate method to ensure that the Court is able fully to review

13

Plaintiff’s response.

14

order, his motion to dismiss will be denied.

15

If Defendant fails to comply with this

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 9/13/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2