Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Courthouse

2500 Tulare St., Ste. 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, United States 

Marshals Service and Department of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCHULZE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF )

INVESTIGATION, DRUG )

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, )

UNITED STATES MARSHALS )

SERVICE and DEPARTMENT OF )

JUSTICE, )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-00180-AWI-NEW (WMW)

DEFENDANTS’THIRD EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME BY WHICH TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; [PROPOSED]

ORDER

[Local Rule 6-144(c)]

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(c), defendants Federal Bureau

of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States

Marshals Service and Department of Justice (“defendants”) request

by way of this ex parte application a forty-five day extension of

time by which all parties must file dispositive motions in this

case. The present dispositive motion deadline is May 21, 2007. 

Defendants seek to extend this deadline until July 6, 2007, and

base this application on ample good cause. Defendants explain as

follows:

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 7
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 2

1. Plaintiff Michael Schulze brings FOIA and Privacy Act

claims against defendants while incarcerated within the Bureau of

Prisons system. (Declaration of Brian W. Enos (“Enos Decl.”),

para. 2). Defendants request a 45-day extension of the parties’

deadline by which to file their dispositive motions in this case,

or from May 21, 2007 until July 6, 2007. Defendants understand

that this is their third ex parte application filed in this case. 

As chronologically explained below, however, it is based upon

good cause. (Enos Decl., para. 3).

2. By way of brief background, this Court issued a

Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 20, 2006 regarding this

case. (Doc 35). Within this order, the Court initially set a

dispositive motion filing deadline of January 20, 2007. In light

of a complicated, month-long trial that the undersigned tried in

Courtroom 2 of this court from January 17, 2007 through February

14, 2007, however, the court extended this deadline to March 20,

2007 by way of formal order. (Doc. 45; Enos Decl., para. 4).

 3. While working on this case in early March 2007,

defendants’ counsel learned that plaintiff’s claims against

defendant USMS were not yet administratively exhausted or fully

developed. (Enos Decl., para. 5). Specifically, at that time the

USMS had not yet completed the processing of plaintiff’s FOIA

request, because (1) plaintiff had not yet satisfied the USMS’s

procedures and payment requirements for processing FOIA requests,

(2) due to plaintiff’s filing the instant action prior to

satisfying these requirements, the USMS had only recently

completed processing plaintiff’s initial requests, and (3) the

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 7
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 3

USMS encountered difficulties in timely communicating with

plaintiff due to his being transferred among penitentiaries

within the United States Bureau of Prisons. (Id.; See also Doc.

48).

4. In light of the above, defendants applied ex parte on

March 13, 2007 to continue this action’s dispositive motion

filing deadline 60 days, or from March 20, 2007 until May 21,

2007. (Doc. 47; Enos Decl., para. 6). The court granted this

application by way of formal order, dated March 14, 2007. (Doc.

48; Enos Decl., para. 6, Exh. A).

5. Defendants at this time request an additional 45 days by

which to file dispositive motions in this case, and base their

request on good cause. (Enos Decl., para. 7). In brief and as

explained in more detail below, the USMS and plaintiff are

working diligently toward narrowing and potentially resolving all

issues relating to plaintiff’s claims against this defendant.

(Ibid.) While plaintiff still has not paid for the documents he

requests from the USMS as required, the USMS in good faith

produced hundreds of documents to him last month. (Ibid.) In

addition, and pursuant to plaintiff’s subsequent claim that more

documents should be forthcoming, the USMS searched for and

recently located additional documents that it is presently

reviewing. (Ibid.) Since the USMS has only received some of these

additional documents earlier this week, it needs limited

additional time by which to analyze them, produce them as

appropriate, and if necessary prepare a Vaughn index of documents

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 7
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 4

not produced. (Ibid.) To specify chronologically, since March 14,

2007:

a. The USMS provided plaintiff with over 500 pages of

documents he requested under FOIA. (Enos Decl., para. 7(a)).

Defendant acknowledges receiving these documents on or about

April 2, 2007. (Ibid.) In response to this production,

plaintiff sent the USMS a letter on April 4, 2007 (and the

undersigned a cover letter attaching the same on April 5,

2007), in which he requested additional documents relating

the sales of various items of real and personal property

that he alleges to have owned and had seized from him

regarding a prior criminal matter. (Enos Decl., para. 7(a),

Exh. B).

b. USMS Associate General Counsel Ed Bordley

responded to plaintiff’s April 4, 2007 letter in writing on

April 26, 2007. (Enos Decl., para. 7(b), Exh. C). Within

this letter, the USMS explained to plaintiff why it sent him

the documents it did. (Ibid.) It also advised plaintiff of

its willingness to “conduc[t] another search for records in

the USMS Headquarter’s Asset Forfeiture Office and the USMS

districts [sic] offices in Nevada and Hawaii” regarding the

litany of items plaintiff claimed that the USMS seized from

him as part of the prior criminal matter. (Ibid.) The USMS

agreed to as much (despite still not receiving plaintiff’s

requisite payments) “based on the additional information

[plaintiff] provided in his April 4, 2007 letter.” (Ibid.)

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

c. On May 10, 2007, Mr. Bordley of the USMS sent

plaintiff another letter, this time advising him of the

results of the USMS’s second search for documents. (Enos

Decl., para. 7(c), Exh. D). Within this letter, the USMS

advised plaintiff that it “completed a thorough and

extensive search of their files for records pertaining to

[him] and for property seized from [him].” (Ibid.) It also

advised him that as a result of this search, a “substantial

number of additional documents have been forwarded to [its]

office for processing.” (Ibid.) These documents did not

arrive at the USMS’s Office of General Counsel for analysis

until a few days ago. (Ibid.) The USMS further advised

plaintiff that it was currently reviewing these additional

documents to determine the number of pages that may be

disclosed in response to his requests, and that it

anticipated its “complet[ing] the processing of these

documents within two or three weeks” from the date of its

May 10, 2007 letter. (Ibid.)

d. In light of the above, defendants seek an

additional 45 days by which to file their dispositive motion

in this case. The USMS anticipates that it will be able to

send plaintiff his requested records, as well as any

necessary Vaughn index explaining redactions and their legal

bases, well within this time frame. (Enos Decl., para.

7(d)). The USMS conducted an exhaustive search for all

records plaintiff claims to exist, and is fairly certain

that it has located all such records. (Ibid.) Now, it only

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

needs to process them in order for the parties to determine

the extent judicial assistance is ultimately necessary to

resolve all matters relevant to defendant USMS. (Ibid.) 

6. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by this request, and

instead appears to have been working with the USMS in trying to

narrow, and perhaps eliminate altogether, his concerns relevant

to this defendant. (Enos Decl., para. 8). This will, in turn,

narrow the number of issues ultimately to be presented to the

court. Although the USMS is indeed processing and producing

documents to plaintiff, he is further not prejudiced in that he

has not yet paid for requested documents, despite indicating his

willingness to do so long ago. (Ibid.)

7. A timely stipulation extending time cannot be

reasonably obtained, in that plaintiff, acting pro se, is

presently incarcerated. (Enos Decl., para. 9).

8. In light of the foregoing, defendants respectfully

request the court to extend the parties’ deadline by which to

file dispositive motions in this case by 45 days, or through July

6, 2007. Beforehand, defendants are simply unable to complete

all processing of documents obtained in response to plaintiff’s

FOIA requests in a manner that would allow the Court to

definitively rule in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 11, 2007 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian W. Enos________

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for defendants 

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 50 Filed 05/15/07 Page 7 of 7