UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada ) Non-Profit Corporation, and ) 2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED ) FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., d/b/a ) AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED ) Case No. 14-cv-00187-RAW FORENSIC COUNSELORS, a Nevada For- ) Profit Corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) 1. NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a ) California Non-Profit Corporation; ) 2. NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. ) d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD, d/b/a ) ADVANCE DETOX, d/b/a ARROWHEAD ) MEDICAL DETOX, d/b/a NARCONON ) CHILOCCO NEW LIFE CENTER, an ) Oklahoma Non-Profit Corporation; et al., ) ) Defendants. )
JOINT APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. TO ESTABLISH AN OPTIONAL UNIFIED RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS SCHEDULE FOR ALL SERVED DEFENDANTS
COME NOW the Plaintiffs and Defendant Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc., by and through their respective counsel signing below, and respectfully move that the Court enter an order allowing all Defendants who have been served with process for an optional unified responsive pleadings schedule commencing on or before August 1, 2014, for the following reasons: 1. Many of the individuals and entities who are Defendants have been served with process on various dates, and as a result, many of them are subject
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 237 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/14 Page 1 of 6
2
different dates as deadlines for the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading. The same situation of varying filing-deadlines faces other Defendants who have been or will be served with process. 2. It is wasteful of the parties’ resources to maintain staggered deadlines for the filing of important responsive pleadings by Defendants, and judicial time and resources will also be used unnecessarily unless a unified responsive pleadings schedule is established by the Court. 3. Although the undersigned attorney for Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. does not represent, and cannot speak for, all Defendants who have been or will be served with process, the undersigned attorney has conferred with defense counsel who are representing several other Defendants in this action, and none of them has any objection to the relief sought in this application. Plaintiffs join in seeking such relief. 4. The Clerk of this Court has indicated that establishment of a single response deadline for all served Defendants is acceptable, and he has no objection to the Court establishing such a deadline. 5. The unified schedule that is sought would begin with a date (August 1, 2014) by which a served Defendant may file, but would not be required to file, an answer or other responsive pleading. For example, a Defendant who was served with process only a few days before the Court-established unified deadline would have the option, but not the obligation, to file his or her answer or other responsive pleading by the unified deadline. Such a Defendant would remain authorized to wait and file an answer or other response on or before the deadline that applies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, movants request that the Court permit any Defendant to
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 237 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/14 Page 2 of 6
3
file an answer or other responsive pleading on or before August 1, 2014, regardless of whether or when the filing Defendant was served. Similarly, movants request that the Court permit the Plaintiffs forty-five (45) days from August 1, 2014, in which to file a response to any motion filed by a Defendant on or before that date, and that the Court permit the moving Defendant thirty (30) days in which to file a reply to a response filed by Plaintiffs. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the delay that might be occasioned by establishing a unified deadline for the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading by served Defendants is outweighed by the benefit of saving the time and resources of the parties, the Court, the Court’s staff, and the Clerk, and by other efficiencies that would result. 7. An agreed proposed order accompanies this motion. The proposed order that is submitted with this motion proposes optional deadlines that are acceptable to the moving parties and, upon information and belief, are acceptable to the Defendants whose counsel have been contacted. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. hereby move that the Court enter an order establishing an optional unified responsive pleadings schedule for the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading by any Defendant who has been served with process prior to August 1, 2014, per the accompanying proposed order. Respectfully submitted, NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Defendant BY:
s/ Donald M. Bingham
M. David Riggs, OBA #7583
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 237 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/14 Page 3 of 6
