Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Freedom of Press Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

June 27, 2016

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BY FOURTEEN DAYS DEFENDANT'S DEADLINE TO FILE ITS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

         Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6-2, Defendant requests and the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, have conferred and hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that (1) the Court extend the deadline by fourteen days to July 15 for Defendant to file its combined opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment; and (2) the Court correspondingly extend by fourteen days to August 8 the deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment. The parties are not requesting that the Court reschedule the August 18, 2016 hearing date on those motions and stipulate that, subject to the Court's approval, the hearing can proceed as scheduled on that date.

         Defendant provides the following bases in support of its request:

         1. On January 21, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulated request to, inter alia, set a summary judgment briefing schedule. See ECF No. 25. Thereafter, the Court adopted the parties' proposed schedule and set the following dates for briefing:

a. May 9, 2016 for Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
b. June 10, 2016 for Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion, and any cross-motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff.
c. July 1, 2016 for Defendant's reply in support of Defendant's motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion.
d. July 25, 2016 for Plaintiff's reply in support of Plaintiff's cross-motion.

2. Pursuant to this briefing schedule, Defendant filed its summary judgment motion on May 9, 2016, and Plaintiff filed its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendant's motion on June 10, 2016. See ECF Nos. 30, 37. On that same date, non-parties the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and thirty-seven additional media organizations filed a motion to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (and a proposed amicus brief) . See ECF No. 36.

         3. Defendant needs a fourteen-day extension of its current deadline from July 1 to July 15 to complete its combined opposition to Plaintiff's motion and reply in support of its motion. Consistent with the parties' stipulation to exceed page limits (and this Court's order granting that stipulation), Plaintiff's June 10 memorandum is 35 pages, and it challenges both the adequacy of the FBI's search and Vaughn showing, as well as a large number of specific withholdings. Although undersigned counsel has been working diligently on this case, given the number of issues raised by Plaintiff's filing and the proposed amicus brief as well as the press of other matters, undersigned counsel requires additional time to coordinate with his client and complete Defendant's combined reply in support of its summary judgment motion and opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion.

         4. Defendant also seeks a concomitant fourteen-day extension for Plaintiff's current deadline for its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment from July 25 to August 8.

         5. Both parties request that the hearing date for these motions remain on August 18, 2016. However, both parties also state that they have no objection to rescheduling the hearing date should the Court believe doing so is necessary in light of this stipulation.

         LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION

         I attest that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann's concurrence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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