ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

On April 25, 2018, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 173), requesting a 120-day extension of time, to August 23, 2018, for their response to petitioner's reply. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that this extension of time is necessary because she only recently took over responsibility for this case, as a result of the retirements of two attorneys in the office of the attorney general. There is no indication that the petitioner opposes the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that respondents' motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested. The Court will grant the motion for extension of time.

In addition, in order to coordinate the briefing of petitioner's motion for discovery and motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 166, 168) with the briefing on the merits, the Court will extend the deadline for petitioner to file replies in support of those two motions.

This is an unusually long extension of time for a response to a reply. It appears justified because of the change of counsel for respondents. However, given the length of the extension of time, and the nature of the document to be filed — a response to a reply — the Court will not be inclined to further extend these deadlines.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 173) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until August 23, 2018, to file a response to petitioner's reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner will have until September 13, 2018, to file a reply in support of his motion for discovery (ECF No. 166) and a reply in support of his motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 168).