throbber
Case3:13-cv-01124-JST Document27 Filed10/18/13 Page1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STUART F. DELERY
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
`Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division
`MARY HAMPTON MASON
`Senior Trial Counsel
`GLENN S. GREENE
`Senior Trial Attorney
`U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
`Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation
`P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 616-4143 (phone)
`(202) 616-4314 (fax)
`Glenn.Greene@usdoj.gov
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD B. CHENEY,
`CONDOLEEZZA RICE, COLIN POWELL,
`DONALD RUMSFELD, AND PAUL WOLFOWITZ
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
` )
`SUNDUS SHAKER SALEH, et al.,
`
`) No. 3:13-cv-01124 JST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`) PROPOSED ORDER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) STIPULATED REQUEST
`v.
`
`
`
`
`) FOR AN ORDER ENLARGING
`
`
`
`
`
`) BRIEFING DEADLINES
`GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`______________________________________ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 NO. 3:13-CV-01124 JST
`PROPOSED ORDER:
`STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER
`ENLARGING BRIEFING DEADLINES
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-01124-JST Document27 Filed10/18/13 Page2 of 2
`
`Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED:
`
`a. On or before November 29, 2013, the Defendants will file a dispositive
`
`motion addressing the Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the previous
`
`stipulation and order, the length of the Defendants’ motion shall not exceed
`
`forty (40) pages of text.
`
`b. On or before January 29, 2014, Plaintiff will respond to the Defendants’
`
`dispositive motion. Pursuant to the previous stipulation and order, the length
`
`of Plaintiff’s response shall not exceed forty (40) pages of text.
`
`c. The Defendants will have until February 28, 2014, to reply to Plaintiff’s
`
`opposition. Pursuant to the previous stipulation and order, the length of the
`
`Defendants’ reply shall not exceed twenty (20) pages of text.
`
`d. Pursuant to the previous stipulation and order, in the event that Plaintiff seeks
`
`to challenge any certification of the Defendants in this action made by the
`
`United States Department of Justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) in
`
`response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff may challenge such
`
`certification within the body of her response to the Defendants’ dispositive
`
`motion, in lieu of a separate pleading (such as a motion to strike).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`______________________________
`Judge Jon S. Tigar
`United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California
`
`Dated: October 18, 2013
`
`2 NO. 3:13-CV-01124 JST
`PROPOSED ORDER:
`STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER
`ENLARGING BRIEFING DEADLINES
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket