THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS                 
           Plaintiff,          
                               
      vs.                      
                               
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.          Civil Action No. 84-3552
          Defendants                        FILED
                                          FEB  3  1989
                                   CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
                                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORDER

On December 16, 1988, plaintiff filed a motion for transcripts. This motion was hand delivered td counsel for the federal defendants on December 19, 1988. See Federal Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time (Jan. 4, 1989). No timely opposition was received. A motion for an enlargement of time was filed on January 4, 1989, but no courtesy copy was provided to chambers. In any event, counsel for the federal defendants knew, or certainly should have known, of the Court's policy of granting motions for enlargements of time only in extreme emergencies. Counsel's extreme emergency in this instance was inadvertently "burying" the motion among a number of other papers and placing it in the wrong file. See id.

Having received no timely opposition or notice of the filing of a motion for enlargement of time, the Court granted plaintiff's motion on January 5, 1989, considering the motion to be unopposed. The federal defendants have now filed a motion to

2

reconsider the January 5, 1989 Order. Upon receiving the January 5, 1989 Order, the court reporters listed in the Order began transcribing the indicated proceedings. Thus, transcripts are already available for the proceedings held on March 26, April 4, September 25, and December 8, 1986. The transcript for January 16, 1987, is substantially completed. Furthermore, a review of the reporter's notes from January 20 and February 5, 1987, indicate that these proceedings were, in good part, of a sub stant ive nature . These appeals also are not frivolous but rather present substantial questions.

The proceedings on May 5, October 16, and November 5, 1985, however, appear to be merely procedural status conferences and therefore should not be provided at government expense. Accordingly, it is this 3rd day of February, 1989, hereby

ORDERED: that Federal Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the Court's January 5, 1989 Order should be, and is hereby, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further

ORDERED: that the Order of January 5, 1989, should be, and is hereby, amended to strike the requirement that plaintiffs be provided the transcripts from May 5, October 16, and November 5, 1985. In all other respects, the Order of January 5, 1989, remains unchanged.

(singed) Louis F. Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park