Joe Klock Asks Magistrate Judge Brown for an "Extension of Mercy."

Kids, when you need to ask a judge for an enlargement of time, this is how you do it:

This request is not meant to delay any matters before this Court.  The Order was issued in the middle of the holiday season, and as Plaintiffs' counsel clearly was not working as hard as the Court, were not addressed until after New Year's.  Moreover, if the extension of mercy is not sufficient cause, then Plaintiffs would suggest that waiting until after the pretrial stipulation may narrow the issues that the parties intend to try and the evidence which they intend to offer.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs, JC Atorcha, emailed and called counsel Robert Browning, in a good faith attempt to confer as to whether or not INA would oppose such relief.  Undersigned counsel has not heard back from Mr. Browning, who may or may not still be celebrating the holidays.

Indeed, that may or may not be a photograph of Mr. Browning taken mid-revelry earlier this morning.

(I'm sure he'll get back to JC later on today.....)

Magistrate Judge Brown Refuses to Sanction Plaintiffs!

I guess that's good news?

Read the order and see for yourself:

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the response starts with attacking the Court and then jumps into the argument made at the hearing.  The first paragraph of the order to which this is a response begins with the fact that "[N]o law has been cited for the filing of "objections" to a hearing...." and "[T]o the extent the Court construes same as motions (sic) again they violate Local Rule 7.1(a)(1)".  This is totally ignored in the response.  Apparently things like following the law and the local rules take a significant backseat to ranting and raving and attacking the Court.  Nonetheless it is those very rules and laws that govern our practice and procedure.

The ranting includes using a statement made by the Court after the plaintiffs filed their objections to the hearing (in D.E. 1094) as justification for the filings they made before any such statement was made!

It goes on (downhill?) from there.

Does Anyone Really Care About Time?

I don't know if you guys know this, but Magistrate Judge Brown is presiding over a very interesting case.

So interesting that the Judge is requiring the plaintiffs to explain in detail what happened from day one to the date an enlargement of time is sought:

This matter is before this Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time ... (D.E. 1177).

The Court has considered the motion and all pertinent materials in the file.

The reasons for this motion, in the short run, are certainly reasonable. The question that arises is why, in so many situations, are plaintiffs needing these extensions. What has happened from the beginning of a situation (as opposed to just the last few days before deadlines) that requires said filing(s)?

The Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. The reply shall be filed on or before Tuesday, December 7, 2010. No further extensions will be considered. However, any future motions for extension of time shall include a history from the beginning of the event that resulted in the need for an extension of time.

 I agree!

In fact, why stop at the "beginning of the event"?

(There may be a need to be flexible with page limitations)