Jabbarov et al vs. Bush et al

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply TO RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR PROCEDURES RELATED TO REVIEW OF CERTAIN DETAINEE MATERIALS

D.D.C.July 21, 2006

Approved for public filing by the CSO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOHAMMON, et al. Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, ARMY BRIG. GEN. JAY HOOD, and ARMY COL. MIKE BUMGARNER, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:05 CV 02386 RBW PETITIONER SLAIM HARBI’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR PROCEDURES RELATED TO REVIEW OF CERTAIN DETAINEE MATERIALS Petitioner Slaim Harbi, one of the petitioners in the above-captioned case, respectfully requests an extension of time to respond to Respondents’ Motion for Procedures Related to Review of Certain Detainee Materials and Request for Expedited Briefing (“Respondents’ Motion”). Petitioner requests an extension of time until August 7, 2006 to file their response. Petitioner adopts and incorporates by reference the Motion for Certain Petitioners For Extension of Time filed on July 20, 2006 by co-counsel from the Center for Constitutional Rights and states as follows: On July 7, 2006, Respondents filed their Motion, which relates to their seizure of petitioners’ legal materials and seeks creation of a government “filter team” to review those materials. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b) and Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner’s response to the motion is due on July 21, 2006. Counsel for Petitioner entered their appearance in this matter on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, and have not yet met with Petitioner. Respondents’ Motion contains no individualized Case 1:05-cv-02386-UNA Document 100 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 2 showing as to why a particular detainee’s legal materials were seized and reviewed in violation of his attorney-client privilege. Thus, additional time is required to adequately respond to the issues raised in Respondents’ Motion as they may apply specifically to Petitioner. The extension of time Petitioner seeks would not prejudice Respondents. Respondents waited almost a month after the deaths of three detainees and approximately three weeks after the seizure of the materials before filing their Motion. Moreover, an extension is rational in light of the fact that there was a mediation over this issue with Magistrate Judge Kay on July 19, 2006, and he is not required to report on the mediation until July 24, 2006. For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and permit them to file their opposition by August 7, 2006. Respectfully submitted, /s/ David W. DeBruin One of the Attorneys for the Petitioners David J. Bradford Patricia A. Bronte Wade A. Thomson Maya D. Nath JENNER & BLOCK LLP One IBM Plaza Chicago, IL 60611 Tel: (312) 222-9350 Fax: (312) 527-0484 Dated: July 21, 2006 David W. DeBruin (DDC Bar No. 337626) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005-3823 Tel: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 639-6066 Of Counsel Barbara Olshanksy (BO3635) Gitanjali S. Gutierrez (GG1234) 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Tel: (212) 614-6464 Fax: (212) 614-6499 Case 1:05-cv-02386-UNA Document 100 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Petitioner Slaim Harbi’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Respondents’ Motion for Procedures Related to Review of Certain Detainee Materials and Request for Expedited Briefing was served upon the following person by e-mail and electronic filing on the 21st day of July, 2006: Preeya M. Noronha Trial Attorney Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 email: preeya.noronha@usdoj.gov /s/ David W. DeBruin Case 1:05-cv-02386-UNA Document 100 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 3 of 3