Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 85 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 4 ! i Diane Roark, pro se I~ I I 2000 N. Scenic View Dr. Stayton, Oregon 97383 (503) 767-2490 I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I DISTRICT OF OREGON Il \ l I DIANE ROARK I v. Case No.: 6:12-CV-01354-MC Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT l l ll j I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant i ~ ' 1 I Diane Roark, pro se, submits this unopposed motion for extension of time to reply to Defendant's motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, the undersigned has conferred with Defendant regarding this motion, and Defendant does not oppose the motion. The current deadline for filing a reply is October 24, 2014. Plaintiff requests a 33-day extension, to November 26,2014. This case seeks return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (g). It involves issues related not only to criminal law but also to national security classification standards, claims of a unique National Security Agency right to withhold "protected" but unclassified material, legislative privilege, and other complications. Page 1 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment Roarkv. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC I Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 85 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 4 I I Plaintiff previously agreed in a telephone conference call on August 4, 2014, to a response time of three weeks, mistakenly thinking that this applied only to the legislative I l l I ~ privilege issue. Because all aspects of the case are being considered simultaneously, the currently scheduled 24 days will be insufficient time to reply to the government's multiple arguments. Plaintiff is pro se. Research, writing and formatting require much longer than for licensed government or private attorneys. Many government attorneys apparently also j contributed to or reviewed the government's motion and supporting memorandum, i l including some with specialties in national security and legislative law. In addition to I Assistant United States Attorney James Cox, these include at minimum one or more attorneys each from: the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the National Security Agency; the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); and the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The government received 57 days to prepare its motion and supporting memorandum (August 4 to September 30, 2014). Plaintiff requests equal time, i.e. another 33 days beyond the 24 now allotted. Plaintiff earlier sought an expedited schedule for considering a legislative search issue in order to facilitate the long-delayed recovery of professional materials by Thomas Drake in a related Maryland Rule 41(g) case. However, this is no longer relevant because HPSCI, facilitated by NSA, proceeded with its own search of Mr. Drake's materials prior Page 2 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment Roarkv. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC l- Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 85 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 4 l l to Court consideration oflegislative privilege in Plaintiffs related instant .case, and is now finalizing return of documents that it does not dispute. Plaintiff also needs an extension because she has been able to conduct only minimal research while the government was preparing its motion and had no time to address the case during the first week after receiving the motion. Plaintiff made a previous undated commitment involving travel, and ultimately this was required in late September. A previous commitment involving about a week of volunteer work also arose and had to be fulfilled before mid-September. Obligations unrelated to legal research will continue through the proposed extension. A contracted roof replacement in September required unexpected removal, repair and painting of some house siding, and adjacent siding still must be painted from atop the now-completed roof. Occupants of an apartment owned by Plaintiff decided unexpectedly to move abroad in mid-September; considerable refurbishment, now partially accomplished, is needed so it can be rented again. Autumn also brings many days of work on Plaintiff's three acres of landscape. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for filing a reply to the government's motion for summary judgment by 33 days, from October 24 to November 26. DATED this 9th day of October 2014. Respectfully submitted, Diane Roark, pro se Page 3 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC f Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 85 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Unopposed Motion for Extension of I \ I \ I l I Time To File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was placed in a postage prepaid envelope and deposited in the United States Mail at Stayton, Oregon on October 9, 2014, addressed to: James E. Cox, Jr., AUSA United States Attorney's Office District of Oregon 1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 And via email to: j [email protected] .gov DIANE ROARK Prose \ II Page 4 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC ..