The probationaries' / union employees' counsel has done a marvelous job of showing why the able USDC Judge ought not view this as entirely trivial.
This all comes back to Trumpian lawyers arguing that they -- and they alone -- are allowed to move the goalposts, on federal procedural rules. Not so -- here's the very cogent answer, to the one I mentioned earlier this morning:
. . .[Trumpian/DOGE] Defendants’ extension request is notable not for what it says, but for what it does not say. . . .
First, the parties negotiated the briefing schedule, which the Court then approved, a schedule that generously accommodated defense counsel’s vacation schedules. And now, Defendants neglect to say why Plaintiffs would agree to only two additional days for Defendants’ reply brief, rather than the requested seven. As Plaintiffs explained, the usual time under this Court’s rules between the completion of briefing and the hearing date is 14 days. Therefore, Plaintiffs offered to agree to an extension that would ensure the motions were fully briefed by August 14, which would be 14 days before the August 28 hearing, but Plaintiffs would not agree to a longer extension that would likely require the hearing date to be continued. Decl. of Eileen B. Goldsmith, ¶¶2-4. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if the August 28 hearing date is lost due to Defendants’ extension request.
The permanent injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs in their motion will provide employees adversely affected by OPM’s actions the further and final relief needed to ensure the unlawful terminations challenged in this case do not continue to haunt affected probationary employees in their pursuit of other jobs or unemployment benefits. Every week that passes without permanent relief is compounding these harms. The “press of other business” and counsel’s vacations simply are not sufficient reason to delay completing the briefing and hearing of these cross-motions. . . .
Again, as noted above, if the extension request can be granted without requiring the August 28 hearing to be continued, Plaintiffs would not object. . . .
These government / Trump lawyers are. . . a sad-sack set of. . . losers. Out.
नमस्ते
1 comment:
Here is the operative bit -- just as we predicted. Judge Alsup is having none of this DOGE nonsense:
...Vacations and other planned leave do not constitute good cause where, as here, a party stipulated to the schedule they now deem too onerous. True, one of the government’s attorneys withdrew from this matter. That happened a month ago, and [named replacement attorney is] excellent attorney who has argued every motion thus far, remains on the case (as do two others). “[T]he press of business in other matters” does not ever constitute good cause without more. An ongoing trial, double-booked hearings, and so on may constitute good cause in any one instance, but the government provides no such details here.
The reasons presented by the government do not overcome plaintiffs’ interest in the timely resolution of this matter (and the prejudice caused by undue delay). The government is granted an additional two days for a total 21 days on reply, as agreed to by plaintiffs. The government’s reply shall be filed no later than AUGUST 14, 2025, AT NOON. The hearing goes forward as planned.
IT IS SO ORDERED....
Excellent -- sit on that one, DOGE boys!
Post a Comment