Sharma v. United States Department of Homeland Security

1 The Honorable John H. Chun 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE MALVIKA SHARMA et al., ) No.: 2:23-cv-01227-JHC ) 9 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO ) CONTINUE DEADLINES 10 vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION: SECURITY, ) October 19, 2023 12 ) Defendant. ) 13 STIPULATION 14 The Parties through their respective counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and move for a 60-day extension of the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint. The response is currently due October 20, 2023. A 60-day extension would make the response due December 19, 2023. No other extensions have been requested in this case.

19 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986).

22 The parties submit there is good cause for an extension of the deadlines. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this matter includes over 90 individual plaintiffs. Although the STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAC includes a table of receipt numbers associated with USCIS files, it nonetheless takes significant time to identify each file, confirm it is the correct file, review the contents of it, and determine the situation of each individual plaintiff. Furthermore, the files are kept at multiple service centers around the country. In addition to identification and review of the files, counsel for Defendant must coordinate with multiple agencies within the Department of Homeland Security regarding this litigation. Though the Defendant and its counsel have been working diligently, more time is needed to understand the underlying facts and prepare a responsive pleading. A 60-day extension of time will give the Defendant and its counsel time to understand the facts surrounding each individual plaintiff and the case as a whole and to prepare a responsive pleading.

10 No other deadlines have yet to be set in this case, and thus no other deadlines need to be extended at this time.

12 Therefore, the parties agree to and propose that the Defendant respond to the Complaint no later than December 19, 2023.

14 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

15 DATED: October 19, 2023 s/ Jesse M. Bless Jesse M. Bless 16 Bless Litigation Vineyard Ln.

17 Georgetown, MA 01833 [email protected] 18 Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED: October 19, 2023 s/ Alexandra McTague Alexandra McTague 20 Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice 21 Civil Division P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station 22 Washington, DC 20044 [email protected] 23 Attorney for Defendant STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated this 19th day of October, 2023.

5 A The Honorable John H. Chun 6 United States District Court Judge STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE