DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(First Request)

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Defendants, by and through their attorneys, request a thirty-day extension of time to file a cross-motion for summary and response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In support of this motion, Defendants state as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed the above-caption Complaint, (ECF No. 1), seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS") denial of Plaintiff's Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. Dkt. No. 1.

2. On September 30, 2015, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 11.

3. On November 13, 2015, the parties filed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, Dkt. No. 23, which the Court granted the same day, Dkt. No. 24.

4. The scheduling order included the following schedule for the case:

5. On December 14, 2015, Defendants provided the Certified Administrative Record to Plaintiff, and on January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 17.

6. Counsel for Defendants needs the additional time due to the inclement weather in Washington, D.C., and other deadlines that have made him unable to complete Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by the deadline. On January 22, 2016, the federal government, including the Office of Immigration Litigation at the U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., closed at noon due to a winter blizzard, and did not re-open until noon on January 27, 2016. Counsel for Defendants had and will have conflicting deadlines in other cases, including: (1) deadlines in Fernandez v. Kerry, No. 14cv-88 (S.D. Tex.) of a pretrial order and supporting documents filed January 21, 2016; a Motion in Limine filed January 29, 2016; and preparation for the docket call for trial in Brownsville, Texas, on February 4, 2016; (2) a motion for summary judgment due in Maina v. Lynch, No. 15-cv-113 (S.D. Ind.) by February 1, 2016; and (3) preparation for an oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 8, 2016, in United States v. Zhou, No. 14-55027.

7. On January 28, 2016, undersigned counsel conferred with Seth Reszko, counsel for Plaintiff, and Mr. Reszko indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

8. This is the first request by Defendants to extend their deadline to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. The request is not made for purposes of delay, and will not prejudice Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendants respectfully request the Court to extend by thirty days their deadline to file a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and amend the Scheduling Order for this case as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.