Wolf et al v. Otter et al

Filing 200

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiffs' Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant Kempfs Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The motion is DENIED to the extent plainti ffs seek an order allowing them to file a substantive response to the summary-judgment motion after this Court has ruled on plaintiffs' various pending motions in this case. The motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court will allow plaintiffs un til 3/1/17 to file a substantive response to defendant's pending summary-judgment motion. Defendant's optional reply brief is due by 12:00 p.m. on 3/8/17.. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ANDREW J.J. WOLF, R. HANS
KRUGER, and DAVID S. BEGLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00526-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER; LAWRENCE
WASDEN; IDAHO STATE BOARD OF
CORRECTIONS; ROBIN SANDY, J.R.
VAN TASSEL; JAY NEILSON; IDAHO
COMMISSION OF PARDONS AND
PAROLE; OLIVIA CRAVEN; BILL
YOUNG; MARK FUNAIOLE; JANE
DRESSEN; NORMAN LANGERAK;
MIKE MATTHEWS; BRENT REINKE;
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, INC.; TIM WENGLER;
CORRISON INC., each sued in their
individual and official capacities and
their successors in office,
Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Defendant Kempf’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192). Defendant filed
his second motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2016. See Dkt. 178. In the ensuing
months, plaintiffs have not filed a substantive response to the motion. Instead, in August
2016, plaintiffs filed a motion asking for an extension of time in which to respond. See
Dkt. 192. But plaintiffs did not ask for a date certain; instead, they asked the Court to
allow them to file their response 45 days after this Court has ruled on various motions

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

plaintiffs had filed, including two motions to reconsider and a related motion for leave to
conduct further discovery. See Dkt. 192, at 3. The Court will resolve these motions in a
forthcoming order. In the meantime, however, if plaintiffs wish to file a substantive
response to the summary-judgment motion, they shall do so by March 1, 2017.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant

Kempf’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 192) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
2.

The motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiffs seek an order allowing them

to file a substantive response to the summary-judgment motion after this Court has ruled
on plaintiffs’ various pending motions in this case.
3.

The motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court will allow plaintiffs

until March 1, 2017 to file a substantive response to defendant’s pending summaryjudgment motion.
4.

Defendant’s optional reply brief is due by 12:00 p.m. on March 8, 2017.

DATED: February 14, 2017

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2