Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Opposition to CIA Motion for Extension FILED

Opposition to CIA Motion for Extension FILED

Opposition to CIA Motion for Extension FILED

Page 1: Opposition to CIA Motion for Extension FILED

Category:General

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:July 25, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Judgment, SCHEDULE, summary, defendants, motion, order, documents, defendant, filed, watch, document, plaintiff, judicial, court, EPA, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:12-cv-00049-RC Document Filed 07/25/12 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA 

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:12-cv-00049-RC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT DEFENSE, and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 
Defendants. ____________________________________) 

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION TIME 
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel, respectfully submits this opposition the motion for extension time, styled Defendants Second Motion Extend the Briefing Schedule, (ECF No. 13) filed the above-captioned case. 

MEMORANDUM LAW AND FACTS March 2012, the parties this case filed Joint Status Report with this Court. ECF No. 10. that Report, Defendants agreed produce any responsive, non-exempt documents plaintiff May 18, 2012. Minute Order dated March 2012 (March Order), the Court ordered Defendants produce the responsive documents this May 18, 2012 deadline. the March Order, the Court also established briefing schedule for the parties submit cross-motions and responses this Court for adjudication (if necessary), following production. That briefing schedule was later modified the Courts July 12, 2012 Order the Consent Motion the parties filed July 11, 2012. ECF No. 12. Plaintiffs counsel learned Defendant Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) 

Case 1:12-cv-00049-RC Document Filed 07/25/12 Page 
failure produce all responsive documents the Courts May 18, 2012 deadline July 19, 2012. Defendants counsel also informed Plaintiffs counsel that the CIA would not able complete its review and production the documents until August 24, 2012, and requested extension the briefing schedule. the morning July 20, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel informed Defendants counsel that motion for extension time based failure comply with deadlines was improper, and suggested instead that Defendants promptly produce the newly discovered documents expedited basis that Plaintiff could review them and respond prior the Defendants July 27, 2012 deadline file their Motion for Summary Judgment this case. 
Given the fact that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment was not due filed with the Court for seven (7) days, Plaintiff believes this was the appropriate course  especially since the cause for delay was one Defendants own making.  Defendants counsel responded July 20, 2012 say that Plaintiffs proposal was impossible, but otherwise failed explain why the document review and production could not sufficiently expedited, particularly light Defendant CIAs failure properly produce. their Motion, Defendants still have not explained why full month required review the recently discovered documents which this Court ordered turned over Plaintiff over two months ago. 
The basis for Defendants motion for extension time that Defendant CIA failed conduct adequate search within the Courts imposed deadline for the production all responsive documents. Defendant CIAs failure comply with this Courts deadline requiring sufficient search and production does not itself constitute proper grounds for extension time.  See Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 577 Supp. 309, 312 (D.D.C. 2008) ([T]he government cannot claim basis for failing meet deadlines imposed this Court 

Case 1:12-cv-00049-RC Document Filed 07/25/12 Page 
that simply did not appreciate the full extent the challenges posed, Govt Mot. Except for good cause shown, therefore, the Court will not tolerate any further delay.).  Accordingly, Plaintiff finds Defendants grounds for this request unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, extension time justified and Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion denied. However, Plaintiff recognizes that, practical matter, Defendants delaying conduct the five days between July 20, 2012 and today has now made extremely difficult for this Court properly and efficiently hear dispositive motions pursuant the current schedule. Accordingly, for the convenience the Court  but without allowing Defendants failure comply with deadlines result extended delay  Plaintiff proposes the following modified briefing schedule alternative either denial the Motion adoption the schedule proposed Defendants paragraph their Motion: 
Defendants produce any additional responsive, non-exempt documents Plaintiff before August 10, 2012; Plaintiff notify defendants any challenges any withholdings from the newly-produced records before August 17, 2012; Defendants motion for summary judgment filed before August 24, 2012; Plaintiffs combined opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment filed before September 21, 2012; Defendants combined opposition/reply filed before October 12, 2012; and Plaintiffs reply filed before October 26, 2012. 
Dated: July 25, 2012     Respectfully submitted, 
 /s/ Chris Fedeli
       Chris Fedeli 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third St. SW, Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5185 Fax: (202) 646-5199 cfedeli@judicialwatch.org  
Attorney for Plaintiff