IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTSTO FILE ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate, subject to Court approval, to extend the time for Defendants the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") and itsSecretary, Eric K. Shinseki (together, the "New Defendants") to file an Answer to Plaintiffs'Third Amended Complaint until the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the Court resolves Defendants'Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 187; or (2) April 7,2011. Because the New Defendants intend to respond to the Complaint by filing an Answer and will not file a Rule 12 motion, and because the New Defendants will participate fully in discovery, without waiving any objections to discovery, notwithstanding any delay in filing their Answer, the requested enlargement will not have any effect on the present schedule for the case.
In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this Stipulation is supported by the accompanying Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants.
1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner establishes good causefor the requested enlargement as follows:
a. On November 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint in this case.
b. Joshua E. Gardner agreed to accept service on behalf of the New Defendants, and Plaintiffs' counsel served the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to that agreement on November 24, 2010.
c. On December 6, 2010, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss the notice and health care claims against the Central Intelligence Agency; the health care claims against the Department of Defense, and all claims against the Department of Justice. Defendants did not move to dismiss the claim against VA.
d. On January 10, 2011, the Court, on its own motion, took the Defendants' motion under submission on the papers and vacated the hearing previously scheduled for January 13, 2011.
e. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, VA and itsSecretary's answer to the Third Amended Complaint is currently due on January 24, 2011; and the answer from the other Defendants, depending upon theresolution of the pending partial motion to dismiss, will be due 14 days after theCourt's resolves that motion.
f. As it did with its prior answer, Defendants intend to file a single answer for all thefederal defendants. The parties agree that the interests of orderly caseadministration will be served by extending the deadline as requested so that theNew Defendants will not be required to file their Answer by January 24, 2011,while the partial motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the other defendants still ispending, the outcome of which will determine both the scope of any answer to befiled by those defendants and the due date for that answer.
2. There have been eleven previous modifications in this case.
a. On March 24, 2009, the parties stipulated to a continuance of the casemanagement conference to June 16, 2009, and the deadline for the joint casemanagement statement to June 9, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the Court entered anOrder establishing the dates to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 15).
b. On May 11, 2009, the parties stipulated to enlarge the period for Defendants'response to the Complaint in the form of a dispositive motion by thirty-two days --from May 11, 2009 to June 12, 2009 -- and a corresponding adjustment of thebriefing schedule and hearing date. On May 12, 2009, the Court entered an Orderestablishing the ...