§Why CasetextPricing

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order Combined Opposition/Cross-Motion

24 Cited authorities

  1. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.

    370 U.S. 626 (1962)   Cited 23,453 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

  2. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.

    975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 6,154 times
    Holding the "good cause" standard of Rule 16 controls after a scheduling order establishes the pleading timetable

  3. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A.

    481 U.S. 787 (1987)   Cited 741 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appointment of an interested prosecutor is a structural defect

  4. Shillitani v. United States

    384 U.S. 364 (1966)   Cited 1,330 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when an incarcerated contemnor "carr[ies] the keys of [his] prison in [his] own pockets", his contempt is civil in nature

  5. Kapral v. U.S.

    166 F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,396 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state court criminal judgment is "final" for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the United States Supreme Court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires

  6. Longshoremen v. Marine Trade Assn

    389 U.S. 64 (1967)   Cited 394 times
    Holding that the order at issue could "only be described as unintelligible"

  7. Broderick v. Donaldson

    437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that for an employee to have her work reviewed by one supervisor rather than another does not by itself constitute an adverse employment action

  8. Dag Enterprises Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

    226 F.R.D. 95 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that when the deadline for discovery expires, parties are obligated to seek a modification of the Scheduling Order by demonstrating "good cause"

  9. Open Am. v. Watergate Spec. Prosecution Force

    547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976)   Cited 143 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly granted an extension of time to the agency when the agency was deluged with requests for information vastly in excess of that anticipated by Congress, and the agency was processing the requests with due diligence on a first in, first out basis

  10. Salazar v. District of Columbia

    602 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2010)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming in part sanctions against District

  11. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 33,560 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  12. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,152 times   556 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party