UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 21, 2012
PINNACLE ARMOR, INC., PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,*FN1
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ORDER ADOPTING REVISED BREIFING SCHEDULE AND VACATING HEARING
Plaintiff, Pinnacle Armor, Inc., and defendant, the National Institute of Justice ("NIJ"), stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(a) and subject to this Court's approval, that:
1. NIJ has until January 11, 2013, to respond to plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Revised Administrative Record;
2. Plaintiff has until January 25, 2013, to file its reply in support of its Motion to Supplement Revised Administrative Record; and
3. The hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Revised Administrative Record shall take place on February 1, 2013.
Counsel for the NIJ requested an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion in November due to work obligations. Counsel for NIJ now seeks this additional enlargement of time due to her own illness and the upcoming holidays, during which time agency counsel will be out of the office. Counsel for plaintiff does not oppose this request.
Dated: December 21, 2012 s/ Eric H. Saiki_____________ ERIC H. SAIKI Counsel for Plaintiff Dated: December 21, 2012s/ Tamra T. Moore_____________ TAMRA T. MOORE Counsel for Defendant
Based on the above stipulation of all parties to this action, the Court directs that: Defendant's response to plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement Revised Administrative Record be filed on or before January 11, 2013; and Plaintiff's reply in support of its Motion to Supplement Revised Administrative Record be filed on or before January 25, 2013.
Given the nature of the motion, the Court is of the opinion that a hearing will be unnecessary, and hereby VACATES the hearing on plaintiff's motion, originally set for 8:30 AM in Courtroom 4 on February 1, 2013, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Should the papers raise issues on which the Court believes oral argument would be helpful, the hearing will be reset. IT IS SO ORDERED.