Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180-12/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-LJO

DEFENDANTS’SECOND EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME BY WHICH TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; 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 sixty-day extension of time

by which all parties must file dispositive motions in this case. 

The present dispositive motion deadline is March 20, 2007. 

Defendants seek to extend this deadline until May 21, 2007, and

base this application on good cause. Defendants explain as

follows:

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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 (“plaintiff”) brings FOIA and

Privacy Act claims within this action while incarcerated within

the Bureau of Prisons system. On January 20, 2006, this Court

issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order regarding this case. 

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

dispositive motion filing deadline of January 20, 2007.

2. From January 17, 2007 through February 14, 2007, the

undersigned counsel for defendants tried a complicated

condemnation case in Courtroom 2 of this court. (Declaration of

Brian W. Enos (“Enos Decl.”), para. 4). Since this trial

encompassed defendants’ above-referenced dispositive motion

filing deadline, defendants moved ex parte on December 21, 2006

to extend this deadline two months, or until March 20, 2007. The

court granted this request by way of formal order, dated December

22, 2006. (Doc. 45).

 3. Defendants at this time request an additional 60 days by

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

request on good cause. To explain chronologically:

a. Plaintiff Michael Schulze, an inmate presently

housed within the Bureau of Prisons system, filed the

present FOIA/Privacy Act action in February 2005, and prior

to complying with defendant United States Marshals Service’s

procedures and payment requirements for processing FOIA

requests. As a result, the USMS has only recently been able

to complete the processing of plaintiff’s requests, and

awaits payment from plaintiff so it can send him requested

documents. (Enos Decl., para. 5(a); Exh. A). 

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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

b. To explain, and as revealed in the December 15,

2005 Declaration of USMS Associate General Counsel William

E. Bordley (see Enos Decl., Exh. A), plaintiff failed to

support his initial September 30, 2004, FOIA request to the

USMS with the requisite certification of identity. 

Specifically, the USMS acknowledged receipt of plaintiff’s

FOIA request by way of written letter dated October 19,

2004, and asked plaintiff to provide certification of his

identity at that time. Plaintiff did not provide such

certification as requested. In fact, the USMS was not

notified of plaintiff’s filing the present action until late

2005. (Enos Decl., para. 5(b); See also Declaration of

William E. Bordley, paras. 3-7 and attachment to same,

attached to Enos Decl. as Exhibit A.)

c. On June 12, 2006, the USMS advised plaintiff in

writing that it had conducted a search of its records and

located approximately 994 pages of documents responsive to

his request. (Enos Decl., para. 5(c); Exh. B). At this

time, the USMS also disclosed the first 100 pages of

plaintiff’s requested documents at no cost to him pursuant

to 28 C.F.R. §16.11(d)(3)(i). Within the above letter, the

USMS also explained where it redacted components of

additional documents to be disclosed (and identified the

FOIA exemptions justifying the same), and further advised

plaintiff that it would release records upon receiving

plaintiff’s payment for them. (Ibid.)

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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

d. On June 16, 2006, plaintiff advised the USMS in

writing of his willingness to pay for the above records.

(Enos Decl., para. 5(d); Exh. C)

e. On January 19, 2007, the USMS advised plaintiff in

writing that it had determined that it had 597 pages of

documents responsive to his FOIA request, rather than the

884 pages as earlier indicated, and explained this numerical

discrepancy. (Enos Decl., para. 5(e); Exh. D). The USMS

again explained the bases for his intended disclosures, and

again advised plaintiff that it would send him the requested

records upon its receipt of his payment for them. This

letter was returned to the USMS, in that the USMS had

inadvertently sent it to plaintiff’s prior USP

Bennettsville, South Carolina address unaware that he had

since been transferred to USP Honolulu, Hawaii. I am

informed and believe that the USMS is now aware of this

issue and sending the attached letter to plaintiff in

Honolulu, and will further send plaintiff requested records

as soon as it receives his payment for them.

f. Based on the above, defendants seek an additional

60 days by which to file their dispositive motion in this

case. (Enos Decl., para. 5(f)). The USMS advises that it

will be able to send plaintiff his requested records, as

well as any necessary Vaughn index explaining redactions and

their legal bases, within this time frame. (Ibid.) 

4. In addition to working with counsel for the USMS on

this matter, the undersigned is also working with counsel for the

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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

DEA and FBI. (Enos Decl., para. 6) The FBI has recently

restructured its FOIA response procedures, and now processes all

FOIA requests at its main headquarters in Washington, D.C. rather

than appropriate field offices. As a result, FBI counsel in

Sacramento assigned to this case is determining the extent he may

need to coordinate with the appropriate personnel in Washington

as he assists with defendants’ motion. If so, it may take a few

weeks to complete this coordination. (Ibid.)

5. Based on the above, an additional 60 days is needed to

prepare and file defendants’ dispositive motion in this case. 

Plaintiff is not prejudiced by this request, in that the USMS’s

inability to process his FOIA request when first requested is the

result of his failing to provide the requisite certification of

identity. In addition, plaintiff has not yet paid for the

remaining documents, despite indicating his willingness to do so.

(Enos Decl., para. 7). 

6. A timely stipulation extending time cannot be

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

presently incarcerated. (Enos Decl., para. 8). 

9. 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 60 days, or through May

21, 2007. Beforehand, defendants are simply unable to complete

all processing of plaintiff’s FOIA requests in a manner that

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 6
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

would allow the Court to definitively rule in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 13, 2007 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian W. Enos________

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for defendants 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, 

United States Marshals Service

and Department of Justice

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 6