Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01743/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01743-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN POULSEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND

BORDER PROTECTION,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-01743 SI

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION

TO CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HEARING DATE

Defendant has filed an ex parte motion to continue the hearing date on plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment, originally set to be heard on May 21, 2006, to mid-June. The Court has already

moved the hearing date to May 28, 2006, because of Court calendaring conflicts. The Court DENIES

defendant’s request to move the hearing date again.

Defendant’s articulated reason for seeking the delay relates to its desire to take plaintiff’s

deposition. However, as plaintiff points out in his opposition and as is apparent from defendant’s

motion itself, there is little to be gained by deposing plaintiff prior to briefing or hearing on this motion.

Defendant’s only concrete example of an area for exploration at deposition is that defendant seeks to

“prove the foundation that plaintiff has for the statements made in his declaration, such as in paragraphs

4-5.” However, paragraphs 4 and 5 simply recite that plaintiff read an AP story – copy attached – and

that he wrote a FOIA request about it – copy attached. Plaintiff’s deposition would add nothing material

to these assertions.

///

Case 3:06-cv-01743-SI Document 18 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

This Court will not, as plaintiff requests, enter a protective order against his deposition.

However, the Court sees no need to adjust the summary judgment hearing schedule to accommodate

taking plaintiff’s deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01743-SI Document 18 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2