IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Filing 1963

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Respondents' Consent Motion for a Five Page Enlargement of the Page Limitation for Their Reply Brief) by BARACK H. OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Lisa)

Download PDF
IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Doc. 1963 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Misc. No. 08-mc-442 (TFH) Civil Action Nos. 02-cv-0828, 04-cv-1136, 04-cv-1164, 04-cv-1194, 04-cv-1254, 04-cv-1937, 04-cv-2022, 04-cv-2215, 05-cv-0023, 05-cv-0247, 05-cv-0270, 05-cv-0280, 05-cv-0329, 05-cv-0359, 05-cv-0392, 05-cv-0492, 05-cv-0520, 05-cv-0526, 05-cv-0569, 05-cv-0634, 05-cv-0748, 05-cv-0764, 05-cv-0877, 05-cv-0883, 05-cv-0889, 05-cv-0892, 05-cv-0993, 05-cv-0994, 05-cv-0999, 05-cv-1048, 05-cv-1124, 05-cv-1189, 05-cv-1220, 05-cv-1244, 05-cv-1353, 05-cv-1429, 05-cv-1457, 05-cv-1490, 05-cv-1497, 05-cv-1504, 05-cv-1555, 05-cv-1592, 05-cv-1601, 05-cv-1607, 05-cv-1623, 05-cv-1638, 05-cv-1645, 05-cv-1646, 05-cv-1971, 05-cv-1983, 05-cv-2088, 05-cv-2104, 05-cv-2185, 05-cv-2186, 05-cv-2199, 05-cv-2249, 05-cv-2349, 05-cv-2367, 05-cv-2371, 05-cv-2379, 05-cv-2380, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2385, 05-cv-2386, 05-cv-2387, 05-cv-2479, 06-cv-1668, 06-cv-1684, 06-cv-1690, 06-cv-1761, 06-cv-1765, 06-cv-1766, 06-cv-1767, 07-cv-1710, 07-cv-2337, 07-cv-2338, 08-cv-1101, 08-cv-1207, 08-cv-1224, 08-cv-1228, 08-cv-1233, 08-cv-1235, 08-cv-1237, 08-cv-1238, 08-cv-1360, 08-cv-1440, 08-cv-1789, 08-cv-1805, 08-cv-1828, 08-cv-1923, 08-cv-2019, 08-cv-2083, 09-cv-0031, 09-cv-0745, 09-cv-0873, 09-cv-0904, 09-cv-1332, 09-cv-1385, 09-cv-2368, 10-cv-0407 IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION RESPONDENTS' CONSENT MOTION FOR A FIVE PAGE ENLARGEMENT OF THE PAGE LIMITATION FOR THEIR REPLY BRIEF Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(e), Respondents, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move this honorable Court for a five page enlargement of the page limitation for their "Reply Brief in Further Support of Respondents' Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Court's January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns." The consolidated reply brief is due to be filed today. It will respond to both Petitioners' and the Press Intervenors' opposition Dockets.Justia.com briefs, in the interest of efficiency and pursuant to this Court's Minute Order of May 13, 2010. Were Respondents' reply brief not consolidated, the local rules would provide Respondents with fifty pages total (twenty-five pages each) to reply to the two opposition briefs. Because Respondents are filing a consolidated reply, they are limited to twenty-five pages total except with the leave of the Court. Given the combined variety of arguments raised by Petitioners and the Press Intervenors, and the consolidation of Respondents' reply, Respondents respectfully request an additional five pages, for a total of thirty pages, to provide the Court with a sufficient explanation of the issues involved. No party will be prejudiced by this short enlargement of the page limitation. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Respondents met and conferred with representative counsel for Petitioners and counsel for Press Intervenors regarding the instant motion, and received the consent of the other parties. For the above stated reasons, the Court should grant Respondents' Consent Motion for a Five Page Enlargement of the Page Limitation for Their Reply Brief. Dated: July 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH H. HUNT Branch Director TERRY M. HENRY Assistant Branch Director /s Lisa Zeidner Marcus JAMES J. GILLIGAN Assistant Branch Director 2 LISA ZEIDNER MARCUS Trial Attorney (NY Bar Registration No. 4461679) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 205301 TEL: (202) 514-3336 Attorneys for Respondents 3

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?