The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER
Defendants,*fn1 the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") and its Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP"), request that the 30-day time for response asserted in the unserved summons be extended by 30 days because defendants need the longer period to respond in this action. The 30th day after receipt of the attempted process is January 30, 2012; the extension sought is to February 29, 2012. This ex parte application is needed because plaintiff has failed to respond to defense counsel's request for consent to the extension despite repeated attempts at communication with him through the only contact information he gives in his complaint, a P.O. box. The details are in the accompanying counsel declaration. No previous extension of this time has been requested or granted. A suggested form of Order is included in the event this application is granted.
Dated: January 20, 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: /s/ YHimel YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL Assistant U.S. Attorney
YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), declares as follows:
1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney and am assigned the captioned case.
2. Defendants request this continuance to be able to respond knowledgeably and appropriately, after producing over 1,000 pages of records responsive to plaintiff's request, to the many allegations in plaintiff's confusingly-written complaint.
3. The Order filed November 15, 2011 as Clerk's Record number ("CR") 4, at 2, characterizes plaintiff's allegations as falling under the Privacy Act. For the Privacy Act and most other causes of action against the federal government, unlike the Freedom of Information Act, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2) provides a 60-day period for response to the complaint.
4. A summons issued as CR 7 (but not served upon this office) states the response time as 30 days.
5. On December 29, 2011, my office received delivery of a copy of the 10-page Complaint (CR 1), an Order (CR 4), and an ECF notice for CR 4, with no summons. In an abundance of caution, I calculated the earliest arguable response date as January 30, 2012.
6. Because plaintiff's complaint lacks a street address, fax number, email address, and even the telephone number required by Local Rule 131(a), I have only a P.O. box address to communicate with him.
7. By letter to plaintiff dated January 3, 2012 (copy attached as Exhibit A hereto), I requested contact information. The letter also pointed out the complaint's failure to supply the underlying administrative correspondence, requested a copy of that correspondence, and suggested that defendant might need more than 30 days to respond to the complaint.
8. I received no response to that letter.
9. By letter to plaintiff dated January 12, 2012 (copy attached as Exhibit B hereto), I again requested plaintiff's contact information, that time citing Local Rule ...