From the Court's Order of February 1, 1995, it seems as if
[5 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THIS IS ALSO THE SAME DATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNTIL "JANUARY 31, 1995, WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THEIR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS TO CERTAIN CLAIMS." Supra. Defendants requested an extension until January 31st,plaintiffs' requested January 30th.]
[6 At approximately midnight on January 31, 1991 plaintiffs' found it necessary to file a Second Motion for an Extension of Time Within Which to Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of the TRO..., and Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ]
5
the Court required plaintiffs to file their Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider Denial of the TRO,
or Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous, and Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss," (filed on January 23, 1995, a Motion which the Court GRANTED, on January 27, 1995, before Plaintiffs' even filed an Opposition, and before one was even due). I.e.:
"Finally, the Court is in receipt of ... the Defendants' 'Motion for Stay of Discovery
Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.' ... Defendants'
Motion shall be granted."
It's still a little tough to decide whether there was really any point in going to the trouble to file their replies, because it seemed as if the Court had already resolved some of the issues in defendants favor, obviating the necessity of bothering with plaintiffs' Opposition,
Then came the Court's lightening stroke Order [7] of February 1, 1995:
"ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' "Second Motion for an Extension of Time Within Which to
Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of the TRO,
or Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous, and Defendants' Motion for
Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,"
shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED, as hereinafter provided; and it is
"FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 4:00 p.m. on February 2, 1995, the Plaintiffs shall
file their Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial
of the TRO...."
[7 In an effort to insure that the record was clear on at least a couple of points, the undersigned did filed some hastily prepared documents on February 2nd, but those pleadings left unaddressed certain extremely important issues regarding the documents filed by defendants on January 24th.]
6
Owing to the emphasis in the Court's February 1st Order, plaintiffs seemed finally absolved of any doubt as to what the Court was talking about. Footnote 1, supra. [8]
The undersigned plaintiffs, operating under the hopefully understandable idea that their Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of the TRO was not due until February 3, 1995, presently have their Replies ready for filing. However, if the Court feels confident it has already satisfactorily resolved all the issues raised by defendants, and could only find the undersigned's Replies superfluous, perhaps the Court will be disinclined to grant leave for them to file their Replies out of time. Since the undersigned are very anxious not to displease the Court anymore than it may already be; the undersigned, noting a respectful but firm objection, will refrain from trying to file the Replies they were prepared to file today.
CONCLUSION
With all due respect, the undersigned note, since it doesn't seem like any further matters are scheduled in this case prior to defendants' scheduled Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, presently, it seems, due on February 9th, it
[8 This does not resolve all grounds for misunderstanding. For example in another Order filed January 30, 1995 the Court declared defendants' motion for an Enlargement of Time "MOOT,"
"The Court is in receipt of the Defendants' Motion for an Enlargement of Time in
which to file a Reply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
By Order entered January 17 (sic), 1995, the Court granted the "Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Out of Time Plaintiffs' Response to the United States' Motion
to Dismiss," and thereby extended the date by which the Defendants may file said Reply
until 4:00 p.m. on February 9, 1995." ]
7
doesn't seem that defendants could possibly be prejudiced if the honorable Court were to sign the attached Order.
Therefore, on the strength of the foregoing discussion, the undersigned hereby move for permission to File Out of Time, the replies to the documents filed by defendants on January 24, 1995, and which (except for the aforementioned confusion) would have been filed today.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of February 1995,
______________________________
Concepcion Picciotto, Plaintiff
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008
______________________________
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby state that, on February 3, 1995, a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion of Concepcion Picciotto and Ellen Thomas for Leave to File Out of Time Replies to the Documents Filed by Defendants on January 24, 1995, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia at 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C.
8