ATTASH et al v. BUSH et al

Filing 152

ORDER granting (145) Motion for Hearing; granting (145) Motion to Vacate in case 1:05-cv-01592-RCL. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 1/14/2009. (lcrcl1, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ) IN RE: ) Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) GUANTANAMO BAY ) DETAINEE LITIGATION ) Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____________________________________) ORDER RE JOINT MOTIONS (1) TO VACATE CERTAIN DEADLINES AND (2) TO REQUEST A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Presently before the Court are the parties' joint motions [145] in Attash, et al. v. Bush, Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL), (1) to vacate certain deadlines and (2) to request a casemanagement conference. Having considered the parties' request and the case record, both motions are HEREBY GRANTED, as follows: The following deadlines set forth in Senior District Judge Hogan's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order, as modified by his December 16, 2008 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Government's Motion for Clarification, in Misc. No. 08-0442 are hereby VACATED: (1) Deadline for the Government to provide exculpatory evidence (Hogan CMO I.D.1); (2) Deadline for the Government to respond to Mr. Bin Attash's already-served written request for discovery (Id. I.E.1); 1 (3) Deadline for Mr. Bin Attash to submit his traverse to the Government's factual return (Id. I.G). The Court ORDERS the parties to appear at 10 A.M. on February 3, 2009, for a casemanagement conference. Five Court days beforehand, the parties are FURTHER ORDERED to submit a joint case-management conference statement that advises as to the parties' progress in stipulating to a revised schedule, and that identifies any remaining scheduling disputes. SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on January 14, 2009. 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?