Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02812/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02812-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Defense
Defendant
Marguerite Hiken
Plaintiff
Military Law Task Force
Plaintiff
United States Central Command
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Stipulation to Permit Surreply 

and to Postpone Hearing 

CV-06-2812 (MHP)

PETER D. KEISLER COLLEEN FLYNN (SBN 235281)

Assistant Attorney General CHRIS FORD (SBN 239376)

 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900

KEVIN V. RYAN Los Angeles, CA 90010

United States Attorney Telephone: (213) 252-9444

 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925) Email: colleen_ucsc@hotmail.com

EDWARD H. WHITE (D.C. Bar No. 468531)

U.S. Department of Justice W. GORDON KAUPP (SBN 226141)

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 6110 San Francisco, CA 94110

Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (415) 285-8091

Telephone: (202) 514-5108 Facsimile: (415) 285-8092

Facsimile: (202) 318-4268 Email: gordonk@hotmail.com

Email: ned.white@usdoj.gov

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marguerite Hiken

Attorneys for Defendants Department of Defense and the Military Law Task Force

and United States Central Command

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

MARGUERITE HIKEN and )

THE MILITARY LAW TASK FORCE, ) Case No. CV-06-2812 (MHP) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION TO PERMIT 

) DEFENDANTS TO FILE A

v. ) SURREPLY AND TO POSTPONE 

) HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and ) 

UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND ) HEARING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR

) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendants. ) Date: February 26, 2007

__________________________________________) Time: 2:00 p.m.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, and subject to the Court’s approval, defendants Department

of Defense and United States Central Command (“defendants”) and plaintiffs Marguerite Hiken

and the Military Law Task Force (“plaintiffs”) agree and stipulate to allow defendants to file a

Case 4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document 42 Filed 02/16/07 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

1

 While the parties and the Court agreed that this case would proceed on cross-motions

for summary judgment, and that two of the parties’ briefs thus would be combined briefs, the

plaintiff’s reply memorandum has always been designated solely as a reply brief – not a reply

and an opposition – and is thus limited to 15 pages in length. See Order endorsing Joint

Stipulation and Motion Regarding Submission of Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (dkt.

no. 12) (Aug. 29, 2006) (setting schedule for four sets of briefs: (1) Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, (2) Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

cross-motion for summary judgment, (3) Defendant’s reply in support of their motion for

summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and (4)

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment) (emphasis added).

2

 For example, plaintiffs, for the first time, in their reply challenge the adequacy of

defendants’ search for responsive documents, Plaintiffs’ Reply at 11-12; they assert that

principles of equity should bar defendants’ Exemption 2 claims regarding the ROE documents,

id. at 27-28; and they assert that the ROE documents listed in the Vaughn index, based on their

dates, likely are not responsive to their requests, id. at 8. 

Stipulation to Permit Surreply 

and to Postpone Hearing 

CV-06-2812 (MHP) - 2 -

surreply, not to exceed 20 pages, by March 5, 2007, and to postpone the hearing on crossmotions for summary judgment, previously scheduled for February 26, 2007, until March 12,

2007 or sometime thereafter. 

Good cause exists to permit defendants to file a surreply and to postpone the hearing on

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed their

Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Reply

(“Plaintiffs’ Reply”) (dkt. no. 39), which is 39 pages long and thus exceeds the 15 page limit for

reply briefs under the Court’s Civil Local Rules 7-3(c) and 7-4(b).1

 Plaintiffs’ Reply also raises

several new arguments that were not previously presented in the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment and oppositions thereto.2

 

Courts frequently allow an opposing party to file a surreply to respond to new arguments

and excessive material raised in a reply brief. See, e.g., Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483

Case 4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document 42 Filed 02/16/07 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 Stipulation to Permit Surreply 

and to Postpone Hearing 

CV-06-2812 (MHP) - 3 -

(9th Cir. 1996) (finding that “where new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary

judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the non-movant

an opportunity to respond.”) (citation omitted); Beaird v. Seagate Tech. Inc., 145 F.3d 1159,

1164 (10th Cir. 1998) (indicating that to avoid error, district court must either permit surreply or

refrain from relying on new material in reply brief); Prapha-Phatana v. Cooper Tire & Rubber

Co., 2006 WL 2683629, *6 (D. Ariz. 2006) (granting defendant’s request to file a lengthier reply

due to plaintiff’s filing of brief exceeding page limits); Stevens v. Deluxe Financial Serv., Inc.,

199 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1130 (D. Kan. 2002) (permitting surreply to respond to new arguments

presented in reply). 

Furthermore, the parties agree that defendants’ surreply should not be due until March 5,

2007 and that the hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment should be

postponed until March 12, 2007 or sometime thereafter. Defendants are not able to prepare an

adequate surreply in sufficient time prior to the hearing currently scheduled for February 26,

2007 due to counsel’s obligations on other cases and previously scheduled vacation plans from

February 16 through February 21. The parties’ stipulation, however, would result in only a

minor delay for the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court enter an order

permitting defendants to file a surreply and postponing the hearing on cross-motions for

summary judgment as set forth above.

A proposed order is attached.

Dated: February 14, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

Case 4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document 42 Filed 02/16/07 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 Stipulation to Permit Surreply 

and to Postpone Hearing 

CV-06-2812 (MHP) - 4 -

PETER D. KEISLER

Assistant Attorney General

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /s/ Edward H. White 

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925)

EDWARD H. WHITE (D.C. Bar No. 468531)

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 6110

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel: (202) 514-5108

Fax: (202) 318-4268

Email: ned.white@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ Colleen Flynn 

COLLEEN FLYNN (SBN 235281)

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Tel: (213) 252-9444

Fax: (213) 252-0091

Email: colleen_ucsc@hotmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document 42 Filed 02/16/07 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 Stipulation to Permit Surreply 

and to Postpone Hearing 

CV-06-2812 (MHP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

MARGUERITE HIKEN and )

THE MILITARY LAW TASK FORCE, )

) Case No. CV-06-2812 (MHP)

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) [PROPOSED] ORDER

) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and ) 

UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND ) HEARING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendants. ) Date: February 26, 2007

__________________________________________) Time: 2:00 p.m. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon consideration of the STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE A

SURREPLY AND TO POSTPONE HEARING, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants shall be permitted to file a surreply not exceeding 20 pages

by March 5, 2007, and the hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment previously

scheduled for February 26, 2007 will instead be heard at 2:00 p.m., March __, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ ______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document 42 Filed 02/16/07 Page 5 of 5