TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

Case No. 7:22-CV-178-FL

 

LAURIE REYNOLDS, ET AL.;                                

 

                                        Plaintiffs

vs.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

                                      Defendants

  

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE REPLY

 

 

COMES NOW [ENTER NAME] (“Plaintiff”), and opposes Federal Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Comprehensive Reply. In opposition thereof, Plaintiff submits as follows:

  1. On or about April 13, 2023, the Federal Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a comprehensive reply memorandum in support of Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In said motion, the Defendants requested an extension of time up to May 15, 2023.
  2. There no good cause to grant extension
  3. The motion for extension of time is particularly troubling because the Defendants are engaging in a dilatory tactic, to avoid complying with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The Court had already issued a 60-day extension to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which time was sufficient for Defendants. Extending the time as requested by the Defendants would therefore prejudice Plaintiff since there are pending discovery requests that need Defendants’ response.
  4. The said discovery requests demanded the Defendants to produce, inter alia, reports, statistics, and data about child welfare initiatives at Department Health and Human Services. Plaintiff therefore objects to the requested extension of time because Defendants are using the extension to avoid disclosing pertinent information to the court. Notably, discovery of said information will prove that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction and that Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs’ injuries. It is trite law that if a case has the potential for broad public impact, then public policy weighs heavily in favor of permitting extensive discovery. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 180 (1979).
  5. For the foregoing reason(s), it is evident that there is no good cause to grant Defendants’ motion to extend time. Defendants’ request for the extension of time is only meant to prevent Defendants from disclosing pertinent information in the discovery process.
  6. Defendants should be sanctioned
  7. Pursuant to Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions in order to deter abusive litigation tactics. See R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c) (“[T]he court may impose an appropriate sanction” on a party whose filings are intended to “harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”). The Court also has the inherent authority to “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991). Further, Rule 37 provides generally for sanctions against parties or persons unjustifiably resisting discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
  8. Plaintiff asserts that this Court should sanction Defendants for abusing the discovery process by using dilatory tactics to avoid responding to the discovery requests. In the motion to extend the time, the Defendants only ask time to file a comprehensive reply memorandum in support of Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It follows; the Defendants show no urgency to respond to the discovery requests, which seek pertinent discoverable information that would show Defendants’ liability.
  9. For the foregoing reason(s), Defendants should be sanctioned for deliberately failing to respond to the discovery requests, and engaging in dilatory tactics.
  • The Defendants’ motion is deficient
  1. Local Rule 6.1. provides that a motion seeking an extension of time must “show good cause, prior consultation with opposing [party] and the views of opposing [party].”
  2. Here, the Federal Defendants never consulted Plaintiff before seeking the extension specified in their motion. The motion does not also reflect any view of Plaintiff. The Defendants only state that Plaintiff appears pro se, hence has not been consulted.
  3. The foregoing is a blatant violation of the applicable law and/or rule(s), which fact nullifies Defendants’ motion.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court denies Federal Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Comprehensive Reply. Plaintiff further prays this Court issue any other Order it deems just.

 

Dated: __________

Respectfully submitted:

 

______________________________

[ENTER NAME]

ENTER ADDRESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been sent to the parties in the following addresses:

 

[ENTER ADDRESSES]

 

DATED:

 

______________________________

[ENTER NAME]

ENTER ADDRESS

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )