Motion for Extension of Time and Memo in Support with Certificate of Service and Conference

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

  

LOIS THOMPSON on behalf of and 

as next friend to TAYLOR KEONDRA 
DIXON, ZACHERY X. WILLIAMS, 
CALVIN A. THOMPSON and PRENTISS 

LAVELL MULLINS, 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. Civ. A. No. CA3-92-1539-R 

BURTON F. RAIFORD, in his 

capacity as Commissioner of 
the Texas Department of Human 

Services, 

and 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendants. 

M
e
?
 

N
e
?
 

N
e
 

N
a
”
 

S
e
”
 

S
a
 

S
e
 

S
a
”
 

S
a
 

S
a
 

S
a
”
 

S
a
”
 

S
a
 

S
a
 

S
a
 

N
a
 

S
a
 

S
a
?
 

S
a
 

S
a
 

S
a
”
 
S
S
 

  

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 
  

COMES NOW defendant United States of America ("USA") and hereby 

moves the Court for an extension until November 20, 1992 in which to 

file its response to Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motions to Intervene and 

to Join Additional Defendant. In support of this motion, federal 

defendant respectfully states as follows: 

1. On September 10, 1992, plaintiffs filed a Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Against the 

U.S.A. ("Motion"), seeking to enjoin defendant USA, through the Health 

Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"), a component of the Department 

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT =-- Page 1 
  

 



  

of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), from supporting, allowing or 

financing the states' use of a certain lead test, the erythrocyte 

protoporphyrin ("EP") test, as an appropriate screening test for lead 

poisoning in Medicaid-eligible children. 

2 Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Class Certification on 

October 14, 1992, seeking certification of a nationwide class of all 

Medicaid-eligible children. Defendant USA's response to plaintiffs! 

class certification motion is due on November 6, 1992. 

3. On October 21, 1992, plaintiff-intervenors filed their 

Motions to Intervene and to Join Additional Defendant and proposed 

Complaint in Intervention. 

4. Defendant USA's response to plaintiff-intervenors' Motions 

is currently due on November 10, 1992. 

5. Due to the number and complexity of the issues raised by 

plaintiff-intervenors in their Motions, defendant USA requires 

additional time to prepare a complete and thorough response. 

6 In addition, the preparation of a response to plaintiff- 

intervenors' motions has been delayed by the necessary preparation of 

defendant USA's response to plaintiffs' Motion for Class 

Certification. 

7. Defendant USA's counsel has also been involved with 

discovery matters in an unrelated case during this same general time 

period, further preventing the timely completion of a response to 

plaintiff-intervenors' Motions. 

i An extension of time is therefore requested to allow 

defendant to adequately prepare a thorough response to plaintiff- 

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT -- Page 2 
  

 



  

intervenors' Motions. 

9. Counsel for plaintiff-intervenors has indicated that they do 

not oppose defendant USA's request for an extension of time within 

which to respond to plaintiff-intervenors' Motions. 

10. This request for an extension will not act to delay these 

proceedings. Furthermore, the extension will not prejudice any of the 

parties. 

WHEREFORE, defendant United States of America prays that this 

Court grant an extension until November 20, 1992 to file a response to 

plaintiff-intervenors' Motions to Intervene and to Join Additional 

Defendant. 

Dated: November 5, 1992 Respectfully submitted, 

STUART M. GERSON 

Assistant Attorney General 

MARVIN COLLINS 

United States Attorney 

MARY ANN MOORE 

Assistant United States Attorney 
Texas Bar No. 14360400 

Sal. Licker fe 

SHEILA LIEBER 
  

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT -- Page 3 
  

 



  

OF COUNSEL: 

HENRY R. GOLDBERG, Deputy Chief 

Counsel for Litigation 
DAVID V. PEERY, Attorney 

Office of the General Counsel 
Department of Health and 

Human Services 
Room 500, East Highrise Building 
6325 Security Boulevard 
Baltimore, MD 21207 
(410) 965-8871 

(410) 966-5187 (Fax #) 

\ 

Shey SS i ; } i 

ALINA S. KOFSKY \ 0 
  

Attorneys, Department of Justice 
Federal Programs Branch, Civil 
Division 

90) FE Street, N.W., Room 1010 

Washington, D.C. 20530 
(202) 514-4523 
(202) 616-8470 (Fax #) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT =-- Page 4 
  

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
  

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 4th day of November, 

1992, she conferred with counsel for plaintiffs, Bill Lann Lee, who 

had no objection to defendant United States of America's request for 

an extension of time within which to respond to plaintiff-intervenors' 

Motions to Intervene and to Join Additional Defendant. 

SUEY IN 
ALINA S. KOFSKY 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this 5th day of November, 1992, a copy 

of Defendant United States of America's Unopposed Motion for Extension 

of Time and Memorandum In Support, and Proposed Order, was served on 

via first class mail, postage prepaid upon: 

Laura B. Beshara Bill Lann Lee 
Michael M. Daniel Kirsten D. Levingston 
MICHAEL M. DANIEL, P.C. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational 
3301 Elm Street Fund, Inc. 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 315 West Ninth Street, Suite 308 

Los Angeles, California 90015 

Edwin N. Horne 
Assistant Attorney General 
Office of the Attorney General 
State of Texas 

P.O. BoX:.12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

  

  

ALINA S. KOFSKY \ £0) 

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT -- Page 5