Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01711/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01711-9/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

28

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CONSENSUAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND CONTINUANCE; PROPOSED ORDER Page 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 Federal Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP A. DENNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants.

2:06-cv-1711-LKK-GGH

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’

CONSENSUAL REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION AND CONTINUANCE;

ORDER

Federal defendants, hobbled by the illness of their counsel, request a two-week

extension of the time to reply to plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment, from March 10

to March 24, 2008, and a one-week continuance of the motion hearing, from March 24 to

March 31, 2008. The included counsel declaration details the reasons. No previous extension

of this time has been sought or requested. This extension should not affect the final pretrial

conference set for June 23, 2008, or the trial set for October 14, 2008. A suggested form of

Order is included should this application be granted.

DATED: March 5, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF ZENIA K. GILG

ZENIA K. GILG

KRISTEN W. JUDD

By: /s/ Zenia K. Gilg 

ZENIA K. GILG

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01711-LKK -GGH Document 74 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 4
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

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CONSENSUAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND CONTINUANCE; PROPOSED ORDER Page 2

DATED: March 5, 2008 BRICKWOOD LAW OFFICE

By: /s/ Gary Brickwood 

GARY BRICKWOOD

Attorneys for Nonfederal Defendants

DATED: March 5, 2008 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

COUNSEL DECLARATION

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), declares:

1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the office of the United States Attorney

for the Eastern District of California and am assigned the captioned case.

2. The current schedule made my clients' summary judgment motion due January 31,

2008, opposition due February 25, 2008, and reply due March 10, 2008, with hearing before

Judge Karlton on March 24, 2008.

3. My Ninth Circuit brief defending the correctness of this Court's judgment in Tahoe

Tavern Property Owners Association v. U.S. Forest Service formerly was due February 19,

2008. At the instance of the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources

Division, in Washington, DC, which asserted a need for DOJ review beyond the originallyscheduled one-week period, I obtained an extension of that due date until February 28, 2008. 

No need for such an extension had been anticipated by DOJ or by me. During the period of

the extension there were substantial revisions to the brief. Final approval by DOJ reached me

late in the day on the filing deadline of February 28, 2008.

4. As a result, between the filing of the opposition to summary judgment in the

captioned case (around 6:40 p.m. on February 25, 2008) and the close of business on February

28, 2008, I was unable to turn to any of the research or writing tasks involved in replying to

the opposition to summary judgment in the captioned case.

Case 2:06-cv-01711-LKK -GGH Document 74 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 4
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

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CONSENSUAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND CONTINUANCE; PROPOSED ORDER Page 3

5. During the evening of February 28, 2008, I began having flu symptoms that have

kept me home ever since, including a 101 degree fever.

6. Since getting the flu, I have not had the energy to do substantial work on this or any

case. This application, done from home, is the first written work I have been able to do.

7. This is not the sort of situation in which I could call upon a fellow AUSA to do the

reply in my stead, since I am the only one familiar with the case facts and the summary

judgment motions, and since the learning curve would be steep.

8. By my calculation, the body of federal defendants' points and authorities supporting

summary judgment, CR 67-3, occupied 31 pages. The body of plaintiff's opposition to

summary judgment, CR 68, occupies twice as much: 62 pages. Federal defendants' motion

exhibits, in CR 67, occupied 247 pages. Plaintiff's opposition exhibits, CR 68-3 to 69-2,

occupy more: 326 pages. Federal defendants' statement of undisputed facts, CR 67-2,

occupied 17 pages. Plaintiff's response to federal defendants' facts, CR 70, occupies more: 

46 pages.

9. The burden of replying to plaintiff's opposition papers, from their volume alone,

appears substantial. Even were I well, two weeks would be a minimal time to prepare a reply

to such a volume of written opposition.

10. My understanding from conversation with Ms. Rivas on February 27, 2008, is that

the next regular civil law and motion date after the currently scheduled hearing date of March

24, 2008, is April 7, 2008.

11. My understanding from conversation with Ms. Gilg on February 27, 2008, is that

she has a trial set in another court for April 7, 2008. My understanding is that she is available

for hearing should one be special-set for March 31, 2008.

12. My understanding from conversation with Mr. Brickwood and his office on

February 27, 2008, is that he has a trial set in another court for April 7, 2008. My

understanding is that he is available for hearing should one be special-set for March 31, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01711-LKK -GGH Document 74 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 4
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

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CONSENSUAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND CONTINUANCE; PROPOSED ORDER Page 4

13. The requested extension represents my best effort to reconcile the needs of my

clients, given my current illness, with the Court's need for time to prepare for hearing, the

Court's need not to interfere with the trial schedule, and the other parties' schedules.

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

March 5, 2008.

/s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

ORDER

After due consideration of the application and the reasons therefor, it is ORDERED as

follows:

1. Hearing on the pending summary judgment motions is CONTINUED from March

24, 2008, until April 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

2. Replies, if any, to the opposition to summary judgment shall be filed by March 24,

2008.

It is SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01711-LKK -GGH Document 74 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 4