Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2742
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
               v.                  |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |


Defendants respectfully request, pursuant to Fed. R. Cev. P. 6(b), an enlargement of time of three business days, to and including February 14, 1995, within which to file their combined reply in support of their pending motion to dismiss to certain claims, and response to the plaintiffs' numerous filings. In support of this motion, defendants state as follows:

Pursuant to the Court's previous Order granting defendants additional time to file their reply, defendants' reply in support of their pending motion to dismiss is due to be filed on Fegruary 9, 1995. In addition to the filing their reply, the defendants also intend, in the same memorandum, to respond as necessary to the various motions and filings of the plaintiffs. [1] Although some of

[1 Counsel for the defendants has received the following filings (not including motions for enlargement of time) subsequent to the filing of the pending motion to dismiss: "Plaintiffs' Motion to Reoconsider Denial of Plaintiffs' Application for a TRO, or, Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous" (filed January 11, 1995; "Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions or Other Disciplinary Action or, Alternatively, to Dismiss this Action as Frivolous" (filed January 24, 1995); Joint Motion by Plaintiffs Concepcion Picciotto and Ellen Thomas for Rule 11 Sanctions" (filed February 1, 1995); "Plaintiff Ellen Thomas; Opposition to Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Dismiss for Frivoloty" (filed February 1, 1995); "Opposition by Plaintiff Concepcion Picciotto to Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity and to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" (filed February 1, 1995); "Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Withdraw His Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity" (filed February 6, 1995); "Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's February 1, 1995 Order" (filed February 6, 1995); and "Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Randy Meyers' [sic] Letter of JHanuary 20, 1995 From the Record" (filed February 6, 1995).]


the plaintiffs' motion have been ruled upon by the Court, others require a response. Counsel for the defendants anticipated that she could prepare the combined memorandum for filing on the 9th, but -- in part because of the sheer number of filings, including some received by counsel on February 7th, and in part because of the press of other business, including the deposition of the plaintiffs' statistical expert in a pending Title VII class action (Stewart v. Rubin, Civ. No. 90-2841 RCL) -- has been unable to prepare an adequate reply.

WHEREFORE, defendants respectrully request that the time within which they may file their combined reply in support of their pending motion to dismiss certain claims, and in response to the plaintiffs' various filings, be enlarged to and including February 14, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., D.C. BAR #303115
United States Attorney

SALLY M. RIDER, D.C. BAR #436588
Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the Solicitor