1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

LEONARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOWN OF PROSPER, TEXAS, 

PAUL BOOTHE, and

DOUG KOWALSKI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-650-ALM

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF RESPONSE DEADLINES AND PAGE LIMITS

Plaintiff Leonard Johnson and Defendants Paul Boothe, Doug Kowalski, and the Town of 

Prosper, Texas, jointly move for an extension of time to file their response and reply, 

respectively, to Defendants’ two Motions to Dismiss, filed on September 19, 2023. Dkts. 8 and 

9. Plaintiff also requests an extension to the page limits in order to file a consolidated response to 

both of Defendants’ motions. In support thereof, the Parties would show the following: 

I. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

a. Deadlines

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2023. Dkt. 1. Upon completion of service, 

Defendants obtained a 45-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading, which reset their 

deadline to September 20, 2023. Defendants then timely filed their Motions to Dismiss on 

September 19, 2023. Dkts. 8 and 9. Per the Court’s Local Rules, a response is typically due 

fourteen days from the filing of an opposed motion, and replies are due seven days later. L.R. 

CV-7(e), (f). 

Case 4:23-cv-00650-ALM Document 11 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 148
2

The Parties respectfully request the entry of a briefing schedule that permits Plaintiff an 

additional twenty-one days to file his response to Defendants’ motions, and sets Defendants’

reply deadline twenty-one days from the filing of Plaintiff’s response. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

response would be due on October 24, 2023, and Defendants’ replies would be due November 

14, 2023.

Under Rule 6, the Court may, for good cause, extend the time for an act to be done if a 

request is made before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Here, good cause 

exists to extend the Parties’ briefing deadlines. Plaintiff must respond to two separate motions, 

dealing with distinct questions of law and fact. The extension he requests, which amounts to a 

total of thirty-five days to respond to both motions, is reasonable in light of the forty-five day 

period Defendants’ initially received to file their responsive pleadings, and the additional need 

for Plaintiff to respond to the evidence attached to the Officer Defendants’ Motion. 

Should the Court grant Plaintiff’s extension request, Defendants also request twenty-one 

days to file their reply to Plaintiff’s response, because undersigned counsel will be preparing for 

trial in another matter before this Court slated to begin on November 6, 2023. A November 14, 

2023 reply deadline is reasonable in light of undersigned counsel’s trial schedule.

b. Page Limits

Plaintiff also requests an enlargement of the page limits set by Local Rule CV-7(a)(1), 

which caps briefing on dispositive motions at thirty pages, unless a party obtains leave to exceed 

those limits. Plaintiff intends to file a consolidated response to Defendants’ two Motions to 

Dismiss. Because his consolidated response will address the arguments raised in both of 

Defendants’ Motions, Plaintiff requests an additional fifteen (15) pages for his response brief, for 

a total of forty-five (45) pages. This ensures Plaintiff receives an equal amount of space to 

Case 4:23-cv-00650-ALM Document 11 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 149
3

respond, as Defendants’ collectively devoted to their own Motions—thirty pages for the Officer 

Defendants, and fifteen pages for the Town of Prosper. 

II. CONCLUSION

Good cause exists to set the briefing schedule requested by the Parties, and to extend the 

page limits for Plaintiff’s response. As a result, the Parties respectfully request the Court grant 

their Motion.

Date: September 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Peter B. Steffensen 

Peter B. Steffensen 

Texas State Bar No. 24106464 

psteffensen@smu.edu 

SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW

FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC

P.O. Box 750116 

Dallas, TX 75275 

Telephone: (214) 768-4077 

Facsimile: (214) 768-1611 

/s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury 

Thomas S. Leatherbury

Texas State Bar No. 12095275

Thomas S. Leatherbury Law, PLLC

Cumberland Hill School Building

1901 N. Akard Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

tom@tsleatherburylaw.com

Telephone: (214) 213-5004

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 4:23-cv-00650-ALM Document 11 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 150
4

By: /s/ Robert J. Davis 

ROBERT J. DAVIS

State Bar No. 05543500

J. BAILEY MCSHANE

State Bar No. 24104388

MATTHEWS, SHIELS, KNOTT,

EDEN, DAVIS & BEANLAND, L.L.P.

8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75251

972/234-3400 (office)

972/234-1750 (telecopier)

bdavis@mssattorneys.com

bmcshane@mssattorneys.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

THE TOWN OF PROSPER, TEXAS, PAUL 

BOOTHE, and DOUG KOWALSKI

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 22, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all 

counsel of record.

/s/ Peter B. Steffensen 

Peter B. Steffensen 

Case 4:23-cv-00650-ALM Document 11 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 151