IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

         
___________________________________
STEVEN AFTERGOOD                   )
     Plaintiff,     		   )
                                   )	Case No. 02-1146 (RMU)
v.                                 )
                                   )
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY        )
Washington, DC 20505               )
     Defendant.                    )
___________________________________)

DEFENDANT'S SECOND AGREED MOTION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Defendant, the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA" or "Agency), pursuant to Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P., respectfully requests that the Court modify the remainder of the briefing schedule in this case as follows:

(1) enlarging by 21 days (to June 27, 2003) the due date for the filing of defendant's combined (a) reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, and (b) opposition to plaintiff s cross-motion for summary judgement; and

(2) making plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for summary judgment due on July 14, 2003.

The briefing schedule currently in place did not anticipate plaintiff's filing of a cross-motion for summary judgment. The requested modification reflects that plaintiff has filed a cross-motion and accords defendant an additional three weeks to prepare a consolidated reply/opposition brief. The requested modification also sets a due date for plaintiff's reply brief. The requested modifications will have no effect upon any other deadlines in this case because the filing of plaintiff's reply brief should complete the briefing in this FOIA action, and there are no other deadlines.

We have spoken with plaintiff pro se, Mr. Steven Aftergood, and these modifications have been agreed to between the parties. This is the second request for a modification of the deadlines set forth in the agreed briefing schedule that was entered by the Court; however, candor compels us to point out that this matter was essentially [dormant] between July 15, 2002 and April 4, 2003, when defendant filed its motion for summary judgment.

Good cause exists for granting this motion. In response to our motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed an opposition, a cross-motion, and three declarations in support thereof. Obtaining the agency's views on plaintiff's assertions is a time-consuming process, which involves review and coordination among a number of affected subject matter and classification experts.

The requested enlargement thus is reasonably necessary to allow defendant's counsel to obtain the input of the client agency, and to prepare defendant's combined: (a) reply in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment; and (b) opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, while discharging his responsibilities in other matters. Those responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

• Preparing for and representing the United States in a status conference in the consolidated Select Specialty Hospital v. Thompson actions (HHK) (June 6, 2003).

• Preparing for and representing the United States in a second mediation session in Wolz v. Norton, No. 02-2013 (GK) (June 10, 2003).

• Preparing and filing a response to the Court's Order inviting it to file an amicus brief or intervene in Condit v. National Enquirer, Misc. No. 03-MS-83 (RCL) (requested due date June 13, 2003).

• Conducting discovery in Tate v. Rosenfeld, No. 02-283 (HHK).

• Conducting discovery in Bowers v. United States, No. 012-157 (AK).

• Conducting discovery in Lankford v. Veneman, No. 02-540 (AK).

• Preparing for and representing the United States in a second mediation session in Doe v. Department of Justice, No. 02-353 (RWR) (June 17, 2003).

• Preparing for and representing the United States in a status conference in Spiegel v. Whitman, No. 01-2195 (PLF) and Spiegel v. Whitman, No. 02-2546 (PLF) (consolidated) (June 18, 2003).

• Attending off-site training, June 19 & 20, 2003

• Preparing for and representing the United States in a status conference in Tate v. Rosenfeld, No. 02-283 (HHK) (June 27, 2003).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this agreed motion for modification of the briefing schedule be granted. A proposed order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR., D.C. Bar #246470
United States Attorney

MARK E. NAGLE, D.C. Bar #416365
Assistant United States Attorney

ROBERT E. LEIDENHEIMER, JR., D.C. BAR #420959
Assistant United States Attorney
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th St., N.W., Room 10-816
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dated: June 2, 2003.