UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND : ETHICS IN WASHINGTON

: 11 Dupont Circle, N.W. : Washington, D.C. 20036 : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF : AGRICULTURE, : 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. : Washington, D.C. 20530 : : Defendant. : ____________________________________:

Case No. 1:05-CV-0538 (PLF)

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiff Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) hereby opposes Defendant United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) second motion for an extension of time in which to file a dispositive motion. As grounds for this opposition, CREW states as follows: 1. This case concerns a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed with the USDA on January 11, 2005. Two months later, when the Defendant had failed to respond at all to the FOIA request, CREW filed its Complaint in this action. 2. On April 22, 2005, this Court ordered the USDA to file a dispositive motion by June 20, 2005. Twelve days before this due date, Defendant filed a motion seeking a three-week extension of the Court-ordered deadline. As grounds for its belated motion, Defendant claimed

conflicts with the long-scheduled vacation plans of its counsel. 3. CREW objected to the Defendants motion, pointing out that the Court-ordered due date for the filing of Defendants motion was known to Defendants counsel when she assumed responsibility for the litigation. CREW also opposed as unwarranted an extension of three weeks, in addition to the two months the Court had already given Defendant to prepare its motion. Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Extension of Time, 3, 5. 4. By Order dated June 10, 2005, the Court granted Defendants Motion, thereby giving USDA up to and including July 11, 2005, in which to file its dispositive motion. 5. USDA now seeks a second extension of two weeks in which to file its motion. As grounds, USDA states only that [t]he agency needs additional time to complete its review of a number of the responsive documents, to correspond with the submitters of the information, and possibly to prepare declarations and additions to its Vaughn index for submission to the Court. Defendants Motion for Extension of Time (hereinafter Defendants 2nd Extension Motion), 5. Defendant also claims that it is continuing to release thousands of pages of documents. Id., 4. In other words, USDA is far from completing its processing of CREWs FOIA request, much less filing a dispositive motion. Notably absent from Defendants motion is any explanation whatsoever why it could not complete these tasks in the generous time already allotted it by the Court. 6. USDAs last-minute motion should be denied. It is nothing short of outrageous that USDA waited until near the close of the business day before its motion was due to seek a second extension of time, and offered as justification solely the fact that it had not even completed processing of CREWs request, notwithstanding that CREW filed its FOIA request nearly seven

months ago. It is particularly outrageous given that USDA is operating under a Court-ordered schedule, and has already been given a very generous three-week extension. That Defendant does not appear to take these deadlines sufficiently seriously enough is clear. What is not clear, however, is why the many months that Defendant has been afforded in which to process CREWs FOIA request and file a dispositive motion have not been sufficient.

CONCLUSION Despite the recitation of Defendants counsel that its second motion for an extension of time is made in good faith and with good cause, Defendants 2nd Extension Motion, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this is the case. Instead it has sought an extension based solely on the representation that it is continuing to process the FOIA request at issue and needs additional time. Id. at 5.1 For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Anne L Weismann_____________ ANNE L. WEISMANN D.C. Bar No. 298190 Melanie Sloan D.C. Bar No. 434584 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 11 Dupont Circle, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-5565 Attorneys for Plaintiff July 8, 2005

While Defendants motion includes a four and one-half page declaration of Barbara S. Good, that declaration merely recites the what the agency has done with CREWs FOIA request since its receipt but, like Defendants motion, offers no explanation for why it cannot meet the current court-ordered schedule. 4