Appellant Tribes' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBSON BONNICHSEN, C. LORING BRACE, GEORGE W. GILL, C. tANCE HAYNES, JR.,
RICHARD U JANTZ, DOUGLAS W. OWSLEY,
DENNIS J. STANFORD and D. GENTRY STEELE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, NEZ PIERCE
TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN
RESERVATION, CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA
Case No. 02-35996 (Related Case D.C. No. 96-1481JE D. Or.))
APPELLANT TRIBES' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
The Defendant-Intervenors Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation (collectively "Joint Tribal Claimants"), Appellants in No. 02-35996, request an extension of time to and including July 1,2003, to file a reply brief that would otherwise be due on June 9, 2003. The reasons supporting this request are set forth in the attached declaration of counsel.
DATED this 28th day of May, 2003
Thomas Schlosser, WSBA #6276
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
1. I am one of the attorneys representing the defendant-intervenor-appellant Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Bonnichsen et al., v. United States et al., Ninth Cir. No. 02-35996. On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Natin (collectively "Joint Tribal Claimants"), the Tribes request a 22-day extension of time to, and including July 1, 2003, to file their reply brief. This is the first extension of time on the reply brief requested by appellant Tribes. Without an extension, the Joint Tribal Claimants' reply brief is due on June 9, 2003.
2. The reasons supporting the Joint Tribal Claimants' request are as follows. appellees mailed their answerng brief in the instant case on May 21, 2003. Given the number of inquiries, I expect that several amici will be filing briefs in support of the appellees. Two such amici briefs have already been received. Amici briefs are not due for filing until May 28, 2003. An extension of time is needed to allow sufficient time for the Tribes to prepare a reply, if needed to arguments by amici.
In addition, the United States, defendant-appellant in Ninth Cir. No. 02-25994, the companion appeal to this matter, has moved for a similar 22-day extension to file a reply brief. As these are companion appeals, the briefing schedules in these two matters should be commensurate.
3. Counsel for appellees, Paula Barran, opposes any extension of tme for the filing of the Tribes' reply. However, this Court has accorded appellees two similar extensions of time to file their answering brief in orders concerning the filing of briefs by amici supporting appellants. Appellees filed their answering brief 68 days after the Tribal appellants filed their opening brief.
4. I will exercise diligence to ensure that the Tribal appellants'brief will be filed within the additional time requested.
Thomas Schlosser, WSBA #6276
Return to Communications with the Court