Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al, No. 4:2009cv00037 - Document 204 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 203 Stipulation extending time for new defendants to file answer to re 180 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/25/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Doc. 204 IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director JOSHUA E. GARDNER District of Columbia Bar No. 478049 KIMBERLY L. HERB Illinois Bar No. 6296725 LILY SARA FAREL North Carolina Bar No. 35273 BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN District of Columbia Bar No. 981555 Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: (202) 305-7583 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 Email: Joshua.E.Gardner@usdoj.gov 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 16 17 18 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. CV 09-0037-CW 19 Plaintiffs, 20 21 22 23 v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. 24 25 26 27 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate, subject to Court approval, to extend the time for Defendants the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and its 28 Secretary, Eric K. Shinseki (together, the “New Defendants”) to file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER Dockets.Justia.com 1 Third Amended Complaint until the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the Court resolves Defendants’ 2 Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 187; or (2) April 7, 3 2011. Because the New Defendants intend to respond to the Complaint by filing an Answer and 4 will not file a Rule 12 motion, and because the New Defendants will participate fully in 5 discovery, without waiving any objections to discovery, notwithstanding any delay in filing their 6 7 Answer, the requested enlargement will not have any effect on the present schedule for the case. 8 In accordance with Civil L.R. 6-2(a), this Stipulation is supported by the accompanying 9 Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants. 10 1. Defendants submit that the Declaration of Joshua E. Gardner establishes good cause 11 for the requested enlargement as follows: 12 13 14 15 a. On November 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint in this case. b. Joshua E. Gardner agreed to accept service on behalf of the New Defendants, and 16 Plaintiffs’ counsel served the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to that 17 18 19 agreement on November 24, 2010. c. On December 6, 2010, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 20 Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss the notice 21 and health care claims against the Central Intelligence Agency; the health care 22 claims against the Department of Defense, and all claims against the Department 23 24 of Justice. Defendants did not move to dismiss the claim against VA. 25 d. On January 10, 2011, the Court, on its own motion, took the Defendants’ motion 26 under submission on the papers and vacated the hearing previously scheduled for 27 January 13, 2011. 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER 1 e. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, VA and its 2 Secretary’s answer to the Third Amended Complaint is currently due on 3 January 24, 2011; and the answer from the other Defendants, depending upon the 4 resolution of the pending partial motion to dismiss, will be due 14 days after the 5 Court’s resolves that motion. 6 7 f. As it did with its prior answer, Defendants intend to file a single answer for all the 8 federal defendants. The parties agree that the interests of orderly case 9 administration will be served by extending the deadline as requested so that the 10 New Defendants will not be required to file their Answer by January 24, 2011, 11 while the partial motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the other defendants still is 12 13 pending, the outcome of which will determine both the scope of any answer to be 14 filed by those defendants and the due date for that answer. 15 2. There have been eleven previous modifications in this case. 16 a. On March 24, 2009, the parties stipulated to a continuance of the case 17 18 management conference to June 16, 2009, and the deadline for the joint case 19 management statement to June 9, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the Court entered an 20 Order establishing the dates to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 15). 21 b. On May 11, 2009, the parties stipulated to enlarge the period for Defendants’ 22 response to the Complaint in the form of a dispositive motion by thirty-two days – 23 24 from May 11, 2009 to June 12, 2009 – and a corresponding adjustment of the 25 briefing schedule and hearing date. On May 12, 2009, the Court entered an Order 26 establishing the briefing deadlines and hearing date to which the parties had 27 stipulated. (Dkt. No. 19). 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER 1 c. On June 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to File 2 Response to Complaint until June 20, 2009 on the ground that Caroline 3 Wolverton had assumed primary responsibility for the case sixteen days prior to 4 the deadline for submission of a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed the 5 extension request. The Court entered an Order granting the requested extension 6 7 8 9 10 on June 12, 2009. (Dkt. No. 27). d. On September 10, 2009, at the behest of counsel for Plaintiffs, the parties stipulated to an enlargement of the briefing schedule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and a continuance on the initial case management conference. On 11 September 15, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting the briefing and hearing 12 13 schedule to which the parties had stipulated. (Dkt. No. 42). 14 e. On October 28, 2009, again at the behest of counsel for the Plaintiffs, the parties 15 stipulated to a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and 16 the initial case management conference. On October 29, 2009, the Court entered 17 18 an Order granting the continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to 19 Dismiss and the initial case management conference as the parties had stipulated. 20 (Dkt. No. 50). 21 f. On January 27, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to Enlarge the Time to File 22 Answer until April 19, 2010 on the ground that Defendants wanted to review 23 24 discovery documents that pertained to the factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second 25 Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the extension request. On February 2, 26 2010, the Court entered an Order granting in part the Defendants’ Motion to 27 Extend Time, extending the time to file the answer until March 12, 2010. 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER 1 g. On February 18, 2010, at the behest of counsel for Defendants, the parties 2 stipulated to extend Defendants’ time to respond to discovery requests and 3 produce documents. On February 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting 4 the parties’ stipulation. (Dkt. No. 66.) 5 h. On June 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enlarge by two weeks the time for 6 filing a reply in support of their motion for leave to file a Third Amended 7 8 Complaint and sought to reschedule the July 15, 2010 hearing date concerning 9 that motion. On July 1, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs’ 10 motion. (Dkt. No. 111.) 11 i. On September 7, 2010, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to reschedule the 12 13 hearing date concerning Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents; 14 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) testimony; the entry of a protective 15 order; and Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. (Dkt. No. 137.) On September 9, 16 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered an order granting the Defendants’ motion. 17 18 19 (Dkt. No. 138.) j. On November 24, 2010, at the behest of counsel for Plaintiffs, the parties 20 stipulated to extend Plaintiffs’ time to provide Defendants with a settlement 21 proposal. (Dkt. No. 181.). The Magistrate Judge entered the parties’ stipulation 22 on December 6, 2010. (Dkt. No. 182.) 23 24 k. On December 2, 2010, the parties stipulated to extend the parties’ time to comply 25 with the Magistrate Judge’s November 12, 2010 order regarding certain discovery 26 disputes. (Dkt. No. 184.) The Magistrate Judge entered the parties’ stipulation on 27 December 6, 2010. (Dkt. No. 185). 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER 1 3. Because the New Defendants intend to respond to the Complaint by filing an Answer 2 and will not file a Rule 12 motion, and because the New Defendants will participate 3 fully in discovery, without waiving any objections to discovery, notwithstanding any 4 delay in filing their Answer, the requested enlargement will not have any effect on the 5 present schedule for this case. 6 7 8 9 10 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to Court approval, as follows: 1. The New Defendants shall have until the earlier of: (a) 14 days after the Court resolves Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third 11 Amended Complaint (Docket No. 187); or (b) April 7, 2011, to file their 12 13 14 15 Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. 2. The New Defendants will not file a Rule 12 motion in response to the Third Amended Complaint, and, without waiving any objections to discovery, will 16 continue to participate fully in discovery notwithstanding the fact that the 17 18 19 deadline for filing their Answer is extended as requested in this Stipulation. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 20 Dated: January 21, 2011 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director /s/Joshua E. Gardner_ JOSHUA E. GARDNER KIMBERLY L. HERB LILY SARA FAREL BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN Trial Attorneys Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-7583 Facsimile: (202) 616-8202 E-mail: Joshua.E.Gardner@usdoj.gov 1 2 3 4 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: January 21, 2011 GORDON P. ERSPAMER TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY STACEY M. SPRENKEL DANIEL J. VECCHIO DIANA LUO MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 11 12 13 14 By: /s/ Timothy W. Blakely Timothy W. Blakely [tblakely@mofo.com] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER ORDER 1 2 3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2011 4 5 6 The Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Civil Action No. C 09-0037 CW STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR NEW DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
