NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
77
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #73 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Field, Brian)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 16-745 (ESH)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Defendant hereby moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, for an extension
of time in which to file its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, up to an
including January 9, 2018. This is Defendant’s first request to extend this deadline. Pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 7(m), the Parties have conferred and Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that “the plaintiffs
consent to a 10-day extension—which would make your reply due on Friday, December 22—but
we oppose a longer extension.”1
Good cause exists to grant the relief requested:
1.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2018. See ECF
No. 52. Defendant filed its opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment on November 17,
2017. See ECF No.73. Plaintiffs filed their reply and opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion
on December 5, 2017. See ECF No. 75.
2.
1
Defendant’s reply is currently due on December 12, 2017. See LCvR 7(d).
Of course, Plaintiffs’ proposed 10-day extension would afford Defendant less time than the
Court’s previous scheduling order provided Plaintiffs for their reply. See Min. Order (Oct. 31,
2017) (granting Plaintiffs eighteen days to file their reply).
3.
Counsel for Defendant have several conflicts and pressing matters that will make it
difficult to file a reply by December 12. Accordingly, Defendant requests that this Court extend
its deadline to reply to January 9, 2018.
4.
Specifically, agency counsel is currently occupied with extensive discovery matters
in another action that will make it difficult to provide the assistance necessary to file Defendant’s
reply by before January 9, 2018.
5.
Additionally, AUSAs Field and Nebeker currently have several pressing matters
that will make it difficult to file a reply before January 9, 2018. For example, over the next three
weeks, AUSA Field has multiple dispositive motions, a D.C. Circuit brief, a substantial motions
hearing, and extensive discovery obligations. Similarly, AUSA Nebeker has several dispositive
motions, as well as mediation and discovery obligations, before the end of December.
6.
Further, agency counsel and AUSAs Field and Nebeker have previously planned
travel for the upcoming holidays. Specifically, between December 21, 2017, and January 4, 2018,
overlapping travel schedules will make it difficult to finalize and file Defendant’s reply before
January 9.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant requests that the Court enter the relief requested
in this Motion. A proposed order accompanies this motion.
December 8, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
D.C. Bar #472845
United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN
D.C. BAR # 924092
Chief, Civil Division
By:
/s/ Brian J. Field
W. MARK NEBEKER, DC Bar #396739
BRIAN J. FIELD, D.C. BAR #985577
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 252-2551
E-mail: Brian.Field@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 16-745 (ESH)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time, and the entire
record herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time be and is
GRANTED; and it is further
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of cross-motion for
summary judgment by January 9, 2018.
Date
United States District Judge
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?