Barnes et al v. District of Columbia

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 7 First MOTION to Certify Class

D.D.C.November 9, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARLE A. BARNES, et al Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant Civil Action No: 06-315 (RCL) Next Event: 11/15/06 defendant’s opposition due PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S (SECOND) MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s motion for a second continuance. 1. Defendant was served with plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 via the Court’s EFC system. 2. The Court expressly or implicitly defendant’s arguments to defer certification until after a decision on the merits by ordering defendant to file a response to the motion on or before 11/5/06. 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed, and plaintiffs’ responded to defendant’s motion for summary judgment by filing a Rule 56(f) motion (docket # Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 27 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 2 16 filed 7/18/06) (which defendant never opposed) so the case is ready for discovery to proceed. 4. Plaintiffs suggested to defendant a discovery schedule with depositions beginning 11/13/06 which would have enabled both parties to take depositions (and paper discovery) before the expiration of defendant’s proposed, extended deadline for opposing plaintiffs’ motion to certify. Because defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment this was a reasonable schedule. 5. Plaintiffs have asked for defendant to join with plaintiffs in filing a joint Rule 16.3 statement but defendant has not agreed thus far. Respectfully submitted _______/sig/______________ WILLIAM CLAIBORNE D.C. Bar #446579 Counsel for plaintiffs 717 D Street, N.W. Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone 202/824-0700 Fax 202/824-0745 email law@claiborne.net Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 27 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 2