The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING DEADLINES (Docket No. 55)
On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff John H. McKown, IV ("Plaintiff") filed an ex parte application requesting that an extension of time be granted modifying the parties' briefing schedule as to Plaintiff's Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") claims. (Doc. 53.) On April 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's request. (Doc. 54.)
On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed another ex parte application requesting an extension of the briefing deadlines related to Plaintiff's APA claims. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff indicates that workload considerations prevent him, as a sole practitioner, from meeting the current briefing deadlines. (Doc. 55, p. 4, ¶¶ 4-5.) In seeking a stipulation from the United States to the requested extensions of time, Plaintiff was informed that, while the United States does not join Plaintiff's request for an extension of the briefing schedule, it would not oppose Plaintiff's request. (Doc. 55, p. 4, ¶ 7; Doc. 55, p. 8.) Although the Court does not routinely grant ex parte applications for extensions of time beyond an initial request (see Local Rule 144(c)), the Court will approve Plaintiff's requested continuance in light of the fact that the request is unopposed. However, no further extensions of the briefing scheduling will be granted absent truly good cause, which does not include workload considerations of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's APA claims is modified as follows:
1. Plaintiff's opening brief shall be filed on or before July 2, 2012;
2. Defendants' opening brief shall be filed on or before July 30, 2012;
3. Plaintiff's responsive brief shall be filed on or before August 14, 2012;
4. Defendants' responsive brief shall be filed on or before August 28, 2012; and
5. The hearing on this matter is continued to October 10, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7. If the Court determines that oral argument is not necessary, the Court will inform the parties and vacate the hearing.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...