Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01215-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE; COUNSEL DECLARATION; 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 Defendant

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEANNE SAKAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

CIV. S-06-1215-GEB/DAD-PS

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR INITIAL

THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE;

COUNSEL DECLARATION;

AND ORDER

Date: March 16, 2007

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Dale A. Drozd

Defendant, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, applies under Local Rule 6-144

for an initial three-week continuance of the remainder of the summary judgment briefing

schedule set by Order filed October 11, 2006, including the filing dates for defendant's

opposition and cross-motion, plaintiff's reply and opposition, defendant's reply and the

hearing. In particular, the request is:

1. That the hearing set for February 23, 2007, before Judge Drozd, be continued for an

initial period of three weeks, until March 16, 2007.

2. That the date for filing defendant's cross-motion and opposition be extended by

three weeks, from January 19, 2007, until February 9, 2007.

3. That the date for filing plaintiff's opposition and reply be extended by three weeks,

from February 2, 2007, until February 23, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01215-GEB-DAD Document 26 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE; COUNSEL DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER Page 2

4. That the date for filing defendant's reply be extended by three weeks, from February

16, 2007, until March 9, 2007.

The continuance is needed because defendant needs time to finish its processing for

release of a 2001 personnel practices evaluation whose status as a requested document was

uncertain until mid-January 2007. This application is needed because plaintiff has declined to

consent to the continuance. Details are in the accompanying counsel declaration. No

previous extension of this time has been requested or granted. A suggested form of Order is

submitted herein in the event this application is granted.

Dated: January 18, 2007 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

Assistant U.S. Attorney

COUNSEL DECLARATION

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), declares as follows:

1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney assigned the captioned case.

2. Defendant requests this continuance to be able to finish processing a 2001 OPM

report of EPA personnel practices for release in redacted form, and to expand its summary

judgment opposition and cross-motion presently due January 19, 2007, to include that report.

3. My understanding from agency counsel is that audit reports exist for OPM

evaluations of EPA personnel practices occurring in 2001 and 2006. Until sometime in the

latter part of 2006, the person processing those evaluations for plaintiff read plaintiff's

January and June 2006 FOIA requests for OPM's "most recent evaluation" as seeking the

2001 audit report. The reasoning was that the 2001 evaluation was at that time the most

recent one to result in a report, because the 2006 evaluation results had not yet been put in

written form. But in the latter part of 2006, the staff member became aware that the

evaluation had given rise to written results in August 2006. Because the 2006 evaluation

became the most recent one, she concluded that the 2006 evaluation had become the only

Case 2:06-cv-01215-GEB-DAD Document 26 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE; COUNSEL DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER Page 3

evaluation responsive to plaintiff's January and June 2006 requests for the "most recent

evaluation." Through the first part of January 2007, OPM read plaintiffs' January and June

2006 FOIA requests for the "most recent evaluation" as both referring to the same evaluation.

4. On January 16, 2007, in a second look at plaintiff's revised motion for summary

judgment, Clerk's Record number ("CR") 23, I concluded that plaintiff wants both the 2001

and the 2006 evaluations. See CR 23 at 2, first full paragraph.

5. In my opinion, the FOIA requests themselves are ambiguous and do not compel an

interpretation that they ask for two different evaluations. There is legal support for measuring

a FOIA request's scope as of the time the request is received; there also is legal support for

measuring its scope as of the time the records are processed. Here, both requests were

received in the first half of 2006, before a 2006 report existed, and therefore, under one view

of the law, both requests could refer to the 2001 evaluation. Records thought to be responsive

to both requests were processed in late 2006, and therefore, in another view of the law, both

requests could refer to the 2006 evaluation. In particular, the January 2006 request seeks

"OPM's most recent evaluation." The fact that it also refers to "2001 or later" need not be

interpreted as restricting its scope to 2001, since "2001 or later" can include 2006.

6. Notwithstanding the considerations in the preceding paragraph, in a telephone

conversation on January 16, 2007, agency counsel and I decided that defendant should

respond to the two requests as if they cover the 2001 and the 2006 evaluations.

7. To make that response, we concluded that processing of the 2001 evaluation for

release would need to be resumed, and that redactions in the contemplated release from that

response would need to be covered in a motion for summary judgment.

8. To move for summary judgment on the 2001 evaluation, OPM needs to finish its

processing of it, release it, generate declaration material supporting summary judgment on it,

and cover that material in the briefing, currently due January 19, 2007, being developed to

oppose plaintiff's summary judgment motion and to support defendant's summary judgment

motion.

Case 2:06-cv-01215-GEB-DAD Document 26 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE; COUNSEL DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER Page 4

9. Agency counsel and I estimate that defendant needs three weeks to do the tasks

mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

10. In my opinion, no purpose would be served by litigating the 2001 and 2006

evaluations in motions briefed or heard at different times. The legal issues overlap, and

piecemeal litigation probably would waste judicial resources.

11. On January 16, 2007, I called plaintiff's telephone number of record and left a

detailed voice message asking whether she would consent to the continuance requested here.

12. By letter dated January 16, 2007, I repeated the question and enclosed a proposed

stipulation and order. A copy of the letter and stipulation is submitted contemporaneously

herewith.

13. On the letter's date of January 16, 2007, I attempted to fax the letter and stipulation

to plaintiff's fax number of record. The fax machine made ten attempts to transmit the letter

and stipulation; all were unsuccessful.

14. Consequently, on January 16, 2007, I had the letter and stipulation sent by

overnight service to plaintiff's address of record.

15. At the close of business on January 17, 2007, my office received a fax in which

plaintiff declined to consent to the requested continuance. A copy of plaintiff's fax is

submitted contemporaneously herewith.

16. No previous request for this extension has been made or granted.

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

January 18, 2007.

/s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The hearing set for February 23, 2007, before Judge Drozd, is CONTINUED for an

initial period of three weeks, until March 16, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

Case 2:06-cv-01215-GEB-DAD Document 26 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL THREE-WEEK CONTINUANCE; COUNSEL DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER Page 5

2. The date for filing defendant's cross-motion and opposition is EXTENDED by three

weeks, from January 19, 2007, until February 9, 2007.

3. The date for filing plaintiff's opposition and reply is EXTENDED by three weeks,

from February 2, 2007, until February 23, 2007.

4. The date for filing defendant's reply is EXTENDED by three weeks, from February

16, 2007, until March 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 18, 2007.

Ddad1/orders.prose/sakamoto1215.eot

Case 2:06-cv-01215-GEB-DAD Document 26 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 5