Citing the “requirements of state
procurement law,” the state says in its request that it could only hire
counsel yesterday. The state adds that “the Clerk of the Court indicated
to Plaintiffs and State Defendants that the Court is considering
extending each of the existing briefing deadlines by 2 or 3 days” and
that would mean that even with an extension of time to file an opening
brief, only 7-8 days would be added to the briefing schedule.
Plaintiffs in the case are opposing the request (PDF):
The State Defendants' Motion requesting
an extension of time to file their opening brief fails even to mention
the showing that Tenth Circuit Local Rule 27.4 requires for an extension
of time to file a brief or the Court's previous order in this case that
"[r]equests for extension of time are very strongly discouraged, and
will be considered only under extraordinary circumstances." Dec. 30,
2013, Order [Dkt. No. 10136661] ("Scheduling Order") at 1-2 (emphasis
added). There are no extraordinary circumstances here. Granting of the
Motion will result in a schedule giving the State Defendants more time
(by one day) to file their brief than is ordinarily provided under the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such a result would run contrary
to this Court's earlier determination that the briefing in this case
should be expedited. ...
In related news, the ACLU of Utah plans to announce a lawsuit on
Tuesday against the state for its decision not to recognize marriages of
same-sex couples performed before the Supreme Court stay pending appeal
of the above case.
The Deseret News reports:
The civil liberties organization started
looking for plaintiffs on Jan. 8, the same day Gov. Gary Herbert's
office issued a directive putting state recognition of gay and lesbian
newlyweds "on hold," based on counsel from Attorney General Sean Reyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment