Contrary to the assertion in the United States motion for leave, the Court made no distinction between “private Plaintiffs” and the United States. [Dkt. 1609 at 2]. The United States mischaracterizes the Court’s order when it claims that the “Court ordered that such Plaintiffs’ briefs on the issue of Section 3(c) relief ‘should be due no later than November 30, 2018.’” (emphasis added) [Dkt. 1609 at 1]. The Court did not indicate in its Order that only Plaintiffs seeking 3(c) relief should file by November 30, 2018, or that any party opposing 3(c) relief has until January 15, 2019, to submit a brief. The latter deadline for responsive briefing only applied to Defendants. If there was any confusion on the part of the United States, it had three months from the time of the order to seek clarification of which deadline applied to it.
In addition to the failure of the United States to submit briefing on 3(c) relief in a timely fashion, its motion for leave fails because under Local Rule CV-7(b), “an executed copy of the proposed pleading, motion, or other submission shall be filed as an exhibit to the motion for leave.” The United States did not file its proposed 3(c) brief as an exhibit to this motion.