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)

Download PDF
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

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?