NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #8 MOTION to Certify Class , #11 MOTION to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment by ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gupta, Deepak)
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and
ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, for themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 16-745-ESH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
The parties hereby jointly request extensions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1), of the time in which to file their responses to the two motions now pending in this case:
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. 8) and the government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11).
1. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs’ class-certification
motion was filed on May 2, 2016, making the government’s response originally due on May 16,
2016. With plaintiffs’ consent, the government previously sought and obtained an eight-week
extension of its response deadline, through July 11, 2016. The government maintains that
deferral of the class-certification issue is warranted because the issue of numerosity can best be
briefed, in its view, only after the Court has decided what claims will remain after resolution of
the motion to dismiss. In addition, counsel for defendant has been unable to complete the needed
response to the class-certification motion because he has been busy drafting the dispositive
motion in this case and working on several other actions, including discovery in two unrelated
employment-discrimination actions that have involved several depositions in the past month.
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 5
Counsel for defendant has also been called upon to devote nearly all of his time in the past three
weeks (when he was not in, or preparing for, depositions) to the completion of a complex
summary-judgment motion in another case involving classified information that has required him
to work nearly every day since mid-June.
The plaintiffs consent to the government’s additional two-week extension request. In the
plaintiffs’ view, however, an indefinite stay or deferral of class-certification briefing would be
inappropriate and counterproductive because the Court can decide both motions after they are
briefed in parallel. Moreover, in plaintiffs’ view, any further deferral would be unduly dilatory
because the government has already requested and obtained an eight-week extension on its classcertification motion and is now requesting an additional two weeks—cumulatively a full ten
weeks from the government’s original deadline.
Accordingly, defendant now seeks an additional 14 days, through July 25, 2016, to
respond to the class-certification motion (if briefing is not stayed indefinitely pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss). The plaintiffs consent to the government’s request for 14 more days,
provided that the government takes no further extensions.
2. The government’s motion to dismiss. After obtaining the eight-week extension
on its class-certification response, the government filed its motion to dismiss on June 27, 2016.
Absent an extension, the plaintiffs’ response would be due on July 11, 2016. Plaintiffs now seek
an initial 18-day extension of their time to respond, through July 29, 2016. Good cause exists for
the extension because lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Deepak Gupta, has an unusually large
number of obligations that have prevented, and will continue to prevent, him from devoting
sufficient attention to the brief absent an extension. Those obligations include assisting with a
brief due on July 5 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in a complex tax appeal);
preparing an opposition to intervention due on July 7 in California Superior Court (in an
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 5
environmental dispute over oil drilling in Los Angeles); and a brief due in the D.C. Circuit on
July 13 (in defense of the District of Columbia’s gun laws in the face of a Second Amendment
challenge). In addition, Mr. Gupta is assisting with a brief due on July 14 in the Sixth Circuit (in
an appeal concerning the 2016 presidential election) and the other lead attorney on this case
from him firm, Jonathan Taylor, is out of the country for a pre-planned vacation from July 1-10.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek an initial extension of 18 days of the time to respond to the
government’s motion to dismiss. The government consents to this initial extension request.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the government’s deadline
to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be extended to July 25, 2016 (if briefing
on the motion is not stayed indefinitely), and further request that the plaintiffs’ deadline to
respond to the government’s motion to dismiss be extended to July 29, 2016. A proposed order
accompanies this motion.
/s/ Deepak Gupta
DEEPAK GUPTA (D.C. Bar No. 495451)
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1735 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
William H. Narwold (D.C. Bar No. 502352)
MOTLEY RICE LLC
3333 K Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20007
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS (D.C. Bar No. 415793)
United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN (D.C. Bar No. 924092)
Chief, Civil Division
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 5
/s/ W. Mark Nebeker
W. MARK NEBEKER (D.C. Bar No. 396739)
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Attorneys for Defendant
July 8, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 8, 2016, I filed this joint motion for an extension of time to
file through this Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all
counsel required to be served.
/s/ Deepak Gupta
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?