STUART DELERY, Acting Assistant Attorney General, MELINDA L. HAAG, United States Attorney, ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO, Deputy Branch Director, JOSHUA E. GARDNER, District of Columbia Bar No. 478049, BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN, District of Columbia Bar No. 981555, KIMBERLY L. HERB, Illinois Bar No. 6296725, LILY SARA FAREL, North Carolina Bar No. 35273, RYAN B. PARKER, Utah Bar No. 11742, JUDSON O. LITTLETON, Texas Bar No. 24065635, Trial Attorneys, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., E-mail: email@example.com, Attorneys for Defendants.
JAMES P. BENNETT, EUGENE ILLOVSKY, STACEY M. SPRENKEL, BEN PATTERSON, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
STIPULATION TO AMEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Civil L. R. 6-2, the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move to amend the current pretrial order, Dkt. 481 and enlarge the deadline for the final pretrial conference in this case, currently scheduled for July 10, 2013 to July 17, 2013, as well as other deadlines in the Court's Order for Pretrial Preparation, as explained below. In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this stipulation is supported by the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants, filed herewith, and a proposed order below.
1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner establishes good cause for the requested enlargements of time as follows:
a. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
b. On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed what they contend is a fully dispositive cross-motion for summary judgment.
c. Those motions are fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on those motions on March 14, 2013.
d. The parties' summary judgment motions raise a number of issues under the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution, and the Court's resolution of the parties' cross-motions may greatly streamline, if not completely eliminate, the need for a trial.
e. Given the breadth of issues raised in the parties' cross-motions, however, Defendants believe that it would be more efficient to prepare for trial after the Court has resolved those outstanding summary judgment motions. For example, the issues remaining after the Court's resolution of summary judgment likely will inform the parties' decisions on which exhibits, witnesses, and deposition designations, if any, that they identify, and likely will greatly inform the need, if any, for pretrial motions in limine.
f. Counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs on May 2, 2013 to inquire if they would agree to enlarge certain of the pretrial dates, including moving the final pretrial conference to July 17, 2013, and counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that they consented but would not agree to move the trial date.
2. Currently, pursuant to the Order for Pretrial Preparation, the parties must exchange copies of all exhibits, serve briefs on all significant disputed issues of law, including procedural and evidentiary issues, and identify all deposition designations, interrogatory responses, and responses to requests for admissions by June 12, 2013. Because summary judgment is still pending, the parties believe that moving these submissions to June 27, 2013 would provide them with time necessary to efficiently prepare these documents, as it would allow the parties to tailor the documents to the claims remaining in this case, if any, after the Court resolves the outstanding summary judgment motions.
3. In addition, the meeting of counsel contemplated by the Order for Pretrial Preparation is currently scheduled for June 19, 2013. The parties request moving the meeting of counsel to July 3, 2013. This will give the parties time to meaningfully review the materials exchanged on June 27, 2013, and should lead to a more productive meeting of counsel. The parties further request moving the filing of the documents contemplated in the Order for Pretrial Preparation, paragraph 3, from June 26, 2013 to July 8, 2013, and moving the final pretrial conference from July 10, 2013 to July 17, 2013. The parties do not seek to move the current schedule for the trial.
4. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court amend the pretrial scheduling order ...