Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02440-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

Attorneys for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLIE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Defendant.

CIV-S-02-2436 PAN (JFM) PS

DEFENDANT'S CONSENSUAL

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

14-DAY THIRD EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS SERVED APRIL

12, 2006; PROPOSED ORDER

BILLIE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Defendant.

CIV-S-02-2440 PAN (JFM) PS

Defendant, the Secretary of the Navy, applies under Local Rule 6-144 for a 14-day

third extension, from July 5 until July 19, 2006, of his time as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P.

36(a), as previously extended for a total of 51 days, for response to plaintiff's sixteen sets,

embracing approximately 130 pages, of requests for admissions served April 12, 2006. The

reasons for this application are shown in the accompanying counsel declaration. A suggested

form of Order is submitted herewith in the event this application is granted.

Case 2:02-cv-02440-KJM Document 52 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Dated: July 3, 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

Assistant U.S. Attorney

DECLARATION

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), declares as follows:

1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney assigned the captioned case.

2. On April 13, 2006, I received from plaintiff a package covered by a paper entitled

"Rule 36: Request for Admissions," asking for more than 70 admissions.

3. The package contained a disk. Printed from the disk are fifteen more sets of

admission requests. An example, Set 3, contains 228 admission requests in 13 pages. The

fifteen sets from the disk total 129 pages.

4. There have been two previous extensions of this time: the first extension from May

15 until June 14, 2006, by Application and Order filed May 31, 2006, and the second from

June 14 to July 5, 2006, by Application and Order filed June 15, 2006, for a total of 51 days.

4. On May 12, 2006, I estimated that the work of researching plaintiff's thousands of

propositions for the purpose of admission, partial admission or denial would take 30 days

more than the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P 36. I was wrong. On June 13, 2006, I estimated

that the work would take another 21 days. I was wrong again. The task of responding to the

thousands of requests has been too immense to be completed even within the twice-extended

time. My month of June has been taken up with a series of major and inalterable due dates,

plus an unexpected emergency that caused me to work all night the night of June 13. 

Although Theresa Watson, a personnel specialist at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,

Washington, has been researching and answering the discovery virtually full-time, her efforts

to answer a number of questions have required information from sources outside the PSNS

organization, and legal advice. Because of my unavailability and the existence of such

outside and legal questions, the Navy attorney, Steve Seaton, has been needed; but for

significant periods he has been in non-reschedulable depositions, in surgery and recovering

Case 2:02-cv-02440-KJM Document 52 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

from surgery. For many weeks my secretary, Pamela Beauvais, has inventoried the answers

from Ms. Watson, entered them into the 16 documents, and conveyed Ms. Watson's outside

and legal questions to Mr. Seaton or me if and as available. In the past week I have been able

to give more time to the project.

5. The working relationship with plaintiff continues to be courteous and cooperative,

with each side accommodating the other side's needs for extended time.

6. On June 30, 2006, I spoke with plaintiff. Plaintiff consented to this further twoweek extension through July 19, 2006. Because of mailing delays there is insufficient time to

submit a stipulation before the due date, so we are using this consensual ex parte application.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

July 3, 2006.

/s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

ORDER

It is APPROVED and SO ORDERED. Response to plaintiff's requests for admissions

served April 12, 2006, shall be due by July 19, 2006.

DATED: July 19, 2006.

harris.eot

Case 2:02-cv-02440-KJM Document 52 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 3