Acosta v. United States of America et al

Filing 15

ORDER Setting Hearing on pltf's 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez; denying 14 MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Jeh Johnson, John F Kerry, United States of America, Teresa Bobotek. by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
CARLOS DANIEL ACOSTA,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00420-RSM
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN
F. KERRY, Secretary of State; TERESA
BOBOTEK, Director, Seattle Passport
Agency; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security,

ORDER SETTING HEARING AND
DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carlos Daniel Acosta’s Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. # 12. Plaintiff seeks an order that
requires Defendants to return his United States passport during the pendency of this
litigation. Plaintiff’s TRO motion was filed on the Court’s CM/ECF system at 4:47 p.m.,
on May 13, 2014. The next day, Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking
a continuance of the deadline to file a written opposition. Dkt. # 14. Therein, Defendants
asked for a new response deadline of June 30, 2014.
LCR 65 governs the procedure for filing and responding to motions for temporary
restraining orders brought in this district. Rule 65 provides as follows:

(5) Response: Unless the court orders otherwise, the adverse party
must (1) file a notice indicating whether it plans to oppose the
motion within twenty-four hours after the motion is filed, and (2)
file its response, if any, within forty-eight hours after the motion is
filed. . . . If the movant meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b), the court may grant the motion without awaiting a response.
LCR 65(b)(5). Although Defendants have moved for an extension of time to respond,
they neither cited LCR 65 nor followed its procedure. They appear to have assumed that
the standard third Friday noting procedure applies to motions for temporary restraining
orders. See Dkt. # 14 (oddly stating that the response was due on either May 26 or May
27, 2014). Contrary to Defendants’ assumption, LCR 7(d)(1) plainly states that motions
for temporary restraining orders “shall be noted for consideration the day they are filed”
and it directs the reader to LCR 65 for further information.
Motions for temporary orders are by their nature requests for emergency relief,
and this Court’s local civil rules delineate the expedited procedure that parties must
follow to either obtain or oppose such relief. Forty-eight hours have passed since the time
that Plaintiff’s motion was filed and Defendants have failed to file a written opposition to
the motion in accordance with LCR 65. In addition, the Court finds Defendants’
requested response date of June 30, 2014 to be entirely unreasonable, as LCR 65
contemplates only a forty-eight hour window to file an opposition brief. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time will be DENIED. Defendants shall have the
opportunity to oppose Plaintiff’s motion at a hearing to be set for Tuesday, May 27, 2014
at 10:30 a.m. Defense counsel is directed to notify the Court whether he will be appearing
telephonically or in person.
//
//

Dated this 16th day of May 2014.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE