Document 6566599

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
..