Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00879/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00879-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 1

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

29

30

Attorneys for Defendant 

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN B. GERSON, AS ACTING 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE FREEDOM 

OF INFORMATION UNIT, OR HER 

SUCCESSOR,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-cv-00879 LJO/MJS

EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; ORDER

Defendant United States Department of Justice (“Defendant”), requests a continuance of the 

time in which to respond to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

[Dkt No. 22].

Plaintiff requested, and was granted, an unopposed extension of time of thirty days within 

which to oppose Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Said request was granted by Minute 

Order dated June 23, 2015, [Dkt No. 21] allowing Plaintiff’s opposition to be filed on or before July 

30, 2015. Plaintiff filed his Opposition on July 30, 2015 making Defendant’s reply due August 6, 

2015. After Defense counsel agreed to the extension and the Court approved the same, she arranged 

a vacation and will be out of the office three of the five business days by which the reply will be due. 

Because Defense counsel will be out of the office, she will not have sufficient time to review 

Plaintiff’s sixty-two (62) page opposition and prepare a meaningful response on behalf of the 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

ALYSON A. BERG

Assistant United States Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Case 1:13-cv-00879-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 2
EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 2

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

29

30

Defendant. Therefore, Defendant is requesting a fourteen (14) day extension of time, to and 

including August 20, 2015 by which to file its reply. No prejudice will be suffered by Plaintiff if this 

brief extension is granted as there are no pending deadlines in this action.

Accordingly, for good cause showing, including the unavailability of counsel and the volume 

of documents submitted with Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendant requests a fourteen (14) day extension 

of time, to and including August 20, 2015, by which to file its reply.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 30, 2015 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Alyson A. Berg

ALYSON A. BERG

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendant United States 

Department of Justice

ORDER

For good cause showing and in accordance with Local Rule 144(c) (initial ex parte extension), 

Defendant, United States Department of Justice, is granted an extension of time to and including

August 20, 2015, within which to file its reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00879-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2