Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jay Marsh v. Janet Napolitano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California San Francisco Division

July 11, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge


D 16 The government filed a motion for a protective order noticed for August 2, 2012 so that it can 17 disclose the administrative record to Plaintiff. See ECF No. 29. Marsh does not oppose the 18 protective order. See Plaintiff's Request for an Extension, ECF No. 34 at 2. Accordingly, the court 19 approves it, and it will be filed simultaneously with this order. 20 Then there is the issue of how this affects the briefing. Plaintiff filed a summary judgment 21 motion without the administrative record. Also, even though a joint statement of undisputed facts 22 may be short given that this case is operating within the universe of an administrative record, the 23 parties have not filed one yet (though apparently they are working on it). The administrative record 24 also is over 700 pages. Plaintiff asks for an extension of time to re-work the filings to include the 25 record cites, and the government does not oppose that. Id.; Defendant's Statement of Non-26 Opposition, ECF No. 37. Plaintiff asks for 8 days after he gets the administrative record but also 27 may be asking for a few days more. See ECF No. 34. Apparently none of this will alter the 28 government's filings, which have already been filed and which cite the administrative record 1 (because the government has it). 2 The government should express mail the administrative record to Plaintiff immediately. That 3 means that Plaintiff should have the record no later than Friday, July 13, 2012. The court sets forth 4 the current filing schedule and the revised schedule to accommodate the time needed to update the 5 record cites (based on a receipt date of July 13 plus a few days extra). Plaintiff may not resubmit 6 any declarations under this revised schedule. Plaintiff also must submit an entirely new brief to 7 replace the brief filed in the clerk's record at ECF No. 21 and may only change record cites and not 8 content. Plaintiff may not cross reference or cite in any way the earlier brief. That means that the 9 only document that should change in the record right now is the brief filed at ECF No. 21. Also, 10 any statement of undisputed facts should be filed by July 19, 2012. 11 Date Filed Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion Government's Motion 12 Filing Date original: 6/4/12 original: 7/2/12

COURT 13 revised: 7/24/12 revised: N/a C C

16 Optional original: 7/9 (but nothing filed) optional reply: 7/30/12 (new date) Reply revised: 7/24 revised: N/a 17 18 The court is a little concerned that this schedule is ambitious. If anything about this is not 19 workable, the parties need to start over and reset the hearing date. They should meet and confer by

20 phone no later than Monday, July 16 so that Plaintiff can be sure -- after review of the record -- that 21 the time frame works. If it does not, they should pick another regularly-scheduled date on the 22 court's motions schedule and submit the briefs on a schedule that complies with the local rules (e.g., 23 motion may be filed no later than 35 days before the hearing). They should submit a stipulation with 24 any revisions no later than Tuesday, July 17, 2012. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

Opposition original: 7/2/12 original: 7/16/12 15 Filing Date revised: N/a revised: 7/24/12


© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.