Wormley v. United States of America et al

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to plaintiff's opposition to motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment

D.D.C.August 15, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ELOISE T. WORMLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 08-00449-CKK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al. ) ___________________________________ ) DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS ON IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (b), the District of Columbia (hereinafter “the District”) and Devon Brown (hereinafter “Director Brown”) (collectively “the District Defendants), hereby move for an enlargement of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, from August 18, 2008 to not later than September 12, 2008, and as grounds, therefore, state as follows: 1. On or about August 8, 2008, plaintiff opposed the District Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, by filing a 47 page memorandum in opposition, as well as affidavits and eleven (11) exhibits, some of which are not District of Columbia records. 2. A reply to plaintiff’s opposition is due on or about August 18, 2008. 3. Additional time is requested to investigate and respond to these exhibits. Plaintiff’s opposition relies upon D.C. Department of Corrections Program Statements, two of which are dated after plaintiff is alleged to have been released from her overdetention. (See Exhibit 3 attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition dated February 15, 2008 and Exhibit 5 attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition dated February 29, 2008). Exhibit Eleven (11) to Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 5 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition is a U.S. Marshal’s Service Directive, which plaintiff uses to support her claim against the District as a presumptive nexus. (See Pltf’s Opp. Page 11). For all of these documents and exhibits, the District Defendants request additional time in which to review and communicate with program staff about previous Program Statements or knowledge of the extent Directive. 4. August is a vacation month and difficulties with coordinating with appropriate staff have arisen. This affects the District Defendants’ ability to secure affidavits or declarations. 5. The defendants respectfully request that this Court extend the time to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to September 12, 2008. 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides that, “[w]hen by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done within a specified time, the court… may in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by previous order…. 7. This request is being made prior to the expiration of the prescribed period, and is for good cause shown. 8. No party will be unduly prejudiced should the Court grant the requested relief. For all the above-stated reasons, additional time up to and including September 12, 2008, is requested to file a reply. A memorandum of points and authorities in support of this motion is hereto attached. Respectfully submitted, PETER J. NICKLES Acting Attorney General for the District of Columbia Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 2 of 5 3 GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Ellen Efros______________ ELLEN EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Denise J. Baker Denise J. Baker D.C. Bar No. 493414 Assistant Attorney General 441 4th Street, Northwest, 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 202-442-9887 (Telephone) 202-727-0431 (Facsimile) Denise.baker@dc.gov CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO RULE 7(m) I hereby certify that on August 12, 2008, the undersigned counsel contacted the plaintiff’s counsel vial email to discuss the relief sought in this motion. Undersigned counsel did not consent. ______/s/___________________________ DENISE J. BAKER Assistant Attorney General Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 3 of 5 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ELOISE T. WORMLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 08-00449-CKK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al. ) ___________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION In support of its Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply, the District Defendants rely upon the following authorities: 1. Inherent Power of the Court. 2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). 3. The lack of prejudice to the parties. 4. The record herein. Respectfully submitted, PETER J. NICKLES Acting Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Ellen Efros______________ ELLEN EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 4 of 5 5 /s/ Denise J. Baker Denise J. Baker D.C. Bar No. 493414 Assistant Attorney General 441 4th Street, Northwest, 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 202-442-9887 (Telephone) 202-727-0431 (Facsimile) Denise.baker@dc.gov Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 5 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ELOISE T. WORMLEY ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 08-00449-CKK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) et al. ) ) _____________________________________ ORDER Upon consideration of the District Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support thereof, plaintiff’s response thereto, if any, and the entire record herein, and it appearing to the Court that the motion should be granted, it is by the Court this day of ______________, 2008, ORDERED: That the motion shall be and the same is hereby granted; and it is, FURTHER ORDERED: That the District Defendant’s time to file a reply is extended up to and including September 12, 2008. _______________________________________ JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:08-cv-00449-RCL Document 48-2 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 1