1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LYCURGAN INC. dba
ARES ARMOR,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 14-CV-548 J LS (BGS)
ORDER: (1) GRANTING
PURPORTED JOINT MOTION
FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; AND
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
CONSENT FOR EXTENSION
AND FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
(ECF Nos. 16, 17)
vs.
B. TODD J ONES, in his official
capacity as Head of the San Diego
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives; and DOES 110,
Defendants.
Presently before the Court is a purported J oint Motion for a 30-Day Extension
of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants B. Todd
J ones, in his official capacity as Head of the San Diego Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
Firearms and Explosives; and Does 110 (Defendants) claim that the parties are
currently discussing this case and these discussions could result in a change to the
cases nature; therefore, it is premature to respond to the current complaint, which may
not reflect the current status of this case. (Id. at 1.)
Also before the Court is Plaintiff Lycurgan Inc. dba Ares Armors (Plaintiff)
- 1 - 14cv548
Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-BGS Document 18 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Withdraw Consent for Extension and for Production of Documents. (ECF
No. 17.) Plaintiff alleges that it was not consulted in the preparation and filing of the
J oint Motion, and that the attorney who consented thereto no longer represent[s] Ares
Armor in this matter. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that it intends to file an amended
complaint, but that the contents thereof will be in large part predicated on the contents
of Defendants Answer. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also purports to need the documents
underlying the search warrants before amending its Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff asks that
the Court order Defendants to file an answer, supported by copies of the search warrants
and their accompanying documents, on or before J une 16, 2014. (Id. at 3.)
Having considered the parties arguments and the law, the Court agrees with
Defendants that it is premature to order them to respond to a pleading that Plaintiff has
indicated, in no uncertain terms, it intends to amend. An answer is particularly
premature if Plaintiff purportedly requires the sealed search-warrant documents to draft
its amended complaint.
1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Plaintiffs Motion. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs withdrawal of consent to an
extension of Defendants time to respond but, in light of the pending related motion to
unseal, DENIES Plaintiffs request for the production of documents.
Furthermore, notwithstanding Plaintiffs withdrawn support thereof, the Court
finds that good cause exists to GRANT the purported J oint Motion. Defendants shall
have up to and including J uly 9, 2014 to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: J une 12, 2014
Honorable J anis L. Sammartino
United States District J udge
1
Plaintiff has filed a separate action seeking the unsealing of the search warrants at
issue. See Motion to Unseal Search Warrant Documents, In re the Search of: Ares Armor,
206/208 N. Freeman St., Oceanside; Ares Armor, 416 Natl City Blvd.; Ares Armor
Warehouse, 180 Roymar St. D; and 2420 Industry, Oceanside, CA, No. 3:14-CV-01424-DMS-
J LB (S.D. Cal. J une 11, 2014), ECF No. 1.
- 2 - 14cv548
Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-BGS Document 18 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 2