Even AG Bill Barr issued a memo today saying judges should release non-violent offenders from prisons and place them on home confinement. Come on judges. Let’s do this. Let’s be leaders on this issue and release prisoners who are non-dangerous.
PAPERLESS ORDER re [47] MOTION for Extension of Time to Mediate MOTION for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery re [46] Scheduling Order,, filed by …..Given the global COVID-19 pandemic, it is hardly surprising that Plaintiff filed [ECF No. 47] a motion to extend the mediation and discovery deadlines and all related deadlines and to reschedule the special set trial date.Plaintiff's motion represents that Defendant objected to the request. That's right. Defendant objected to what appears to be a realistic and common sense motion to reschedule the trial and other deadlines. I had to read the certification twice in order to make sure that I was reading it correctly.If the motion is correct, then Defendant wants to push forward with the existing trial date and all trial-related deadlines even though no one has any idea when the Court will be able to safely resume jury trials (or when it will be safe to travel by air, to return to work or to get closer than ten feet to anyone).Rather than guess at defense counsel's motivation, the Undersigned requires defense counsel to by March 26, 2020 file a double-spaced memorandum explaining (1) whether he did, in fact, oppose the motion to reschedule the trial and enlarge trial-related deadlines and the mediation deadline, and (2) all the reasons justifying his opposition (assuming that he did actually advise Plaintiff's counsel that he opposes the motion).If defense counsel opposed the motion, then he is best advised to provide a comprehensive and rational explanation. Before filing this response, though, defense counsel may want to brush up on the concepts or karma, goodwill, grace, compassion, equity, charity, flexibility, respect, spirituality, selflessness, kindness, public spirit, social conscience, and empathy.No reply absent further Court Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/25/2020. (J
7 comments:
Dying to read the Response memorandum.
Case Number?
David, I know you don't want to publish it. But you already put the order out there. And its a public record.
1:18-cv-25429-JG
It’s 6 feet Francis.
Fairness dictates that the response memorandum be published as well. Redact the names if you wish. It reveals an entirely different picture, and Judge Goodman's resulting order takes on an entirely different tone.
Definitely a situation where the movant jumped the gun (since there was a proposal to submit a joint motion) or should have filled in some detail in the Certificate of Conferral. I am sure Judge Goodman would have appreciated more detail.
The response reads like any other response where the non-moving party gets caught with his pants down. Agreeing to extend the discovery deadline 60 days, but not agreeing to extend the dispositive motion deadlines makes ZERO sense. It wastes the time of the parties (if one of the SJ motions is granted) because you just wasted 50 hours getting ready for trial and heard at the calendar call that the MSJ was granted. It also is unfair to the court and the clerks who need ample time to read and research the SJ motions.
Post a Comment