EFTA00204917.pdf

o: Paul Cassell <cassellnOlaw tah.edu> Brad Edwards <bedwards@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:05:09 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, Thanks very much for your courtesy. Have a good weekend. From: Paul rnell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:00 PM Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 1. Thanks for the clarification on the 90 day rule. 2. Brad and I need to confer about the discovery issues, but that is not a basis for our withholding consent for an extension. So you may indicate that we consent to the extension. Brad and I have a different recollection about discovery issues than you do. But let's chat about that next week. Sorry to hear y il are working at 7 PM on Friday night. Paul Paul G. Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. To: Paul Cassell Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Hi, Paul. EFTA00204917 As always, we appreciate your efforts to be accommodating. With respect to the conditions that you have placed on your agreement to the requested extension: (1) No 90-day notice is called for by Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) for the motions/responses/replies connected to the requested extension because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." In any event, after the recent amendments to the Local Rules, the 90-day notices are only "serve[dj on all parties and any affected non- parties." Court filing of the 90-day notices is no longer contemplated by the Local Rules. (2) As to our discussion in early December, we have a different recollection. At that time, notwithstanding our motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to work with you and Brad to attempt to identify items that might be producible by the government pursuant to a narrowed and specific request for production that seeks relevant items and where the production by the government would not be burdensome or otherwise objectionable. We remain willing to work toward such a goal, but have been waiting to hear from you or Brad to begin the process of identifying the items that would be the subject of such a narrowed request. In fact, Marie called Brad several weeks ago to discuss the requests for admissions, but they were unable to connect at that time. If the government's position on these two points causes you to withhold your agreement to our requested extension, we would be happy to inform the Court that you oppose our motion for extension of time. If we do not hear from you by 7:00 pm Miami time that you agree to the requested extension notwithstanding the government's position on these two points, we will report to the Court that you object to the extension. Please be sure to send any reply concerning your position to Dexter, as he will be filing the motion for extension this evening. Thanks, and have a nice weekend. From: Paul Cacroi Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:41 AM Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 As you know, we're happy to try and be accommodating. We would be glad to consent to additional time, but would ask in exchange for two things: 1. The various delays mean that several motions have now been (or will shortly be) pending for more than 90 days, triggering a 90 day report obligation under the local rules. We would trust you would be willing to file that with Judge Marra. EFTA00204918 2. When we finished our telephone call with you some weeks back, Brad and I understood that we would be receiving (a) some initial discovery in the case and (b) a list of additional discovery that we could expect if your motion to dismiss is denied. But we have yet to receive anything at all regarding discovery. We would trust that you will carry through on what we understood you had agreed to in the telephone call. Again, we are happy to help — but would ask you to help us on these two points. Thanks! Paul Cassell Co-counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:24 PM Subject: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Paul and Brad, Happy New Year. I need to ask if you have an objection to the government seeking a second enlargement of time, up to Tuesday, January 24, 2012, to file replies to the victims' two responses to the government's motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery, and responses to the victims' protective motion to compel and protective motion for remedies. am for an evidentiary hearing in a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, which is scheduled for January 24, . am scheduled to go to trial in a tort case sometime during the two week trial period commencing January 17, 2012. I have spent most of the preceding two weeks getting ready for the trial. My colleagu with sporadic assistance from Marie and I, will be preparing the responses and replies. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. EFTA00204919