About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (2021)

handle is hein.preview/supctliu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: SHER EDLING LLP PROTECTING PEOPLE AND THE PLANET April 23, 2020 Via ECF Scott S. Harris Clerk of Court Supreme Court of the United States One First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Re: BP p.l.c., et al., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 Reply in Support of Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari Dear Mr. Harris, Respondent Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (City) submits this reply in support of its application for a 60-day extension to respond to Petitioners BP p.l.c. et al.'s March 31, 2020, petition for writ of certiorari. Although Petitioners object to any extension longer than 30 days, the full 60-day period requested is necessitated by the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on Respondent City and its counsel, exacerbated by the fact that the City will be required to respond not only to the pending certiorari petition but also to at least three anticipated amicus briefs in support of that petition, which are currently due on April 30, 2020. Petitioners state that they understand the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that they respect respondents' need for additional time. But their assertion that the City should have no more than 30 additional days to respond to their arguments and to the upcoming arguments of their amici belies those expressions of understanding and respect. The novel coronavirus crisis has imposed an enormous unanticipated burden on the City and its counsel, who must advise City agencies about innumerable legal issues related to and arising out of the current pandemic, from implementation of shelter-in-place orders, to establishing new testing sites and protocols for testing, to tracing contacts of infected individuals, to addressing a host of other unprecedented public health and safety concerns. Moreover, the City's officials and attorneys must do all this from their homes, often on laptops or tablets, with inadequate internet service and limited access to printers or scanners, and without regular childcare support. Petitioners assert in their opposition that their interest in having their certiorari petition accepted or rejected before this Court's summer recess overcomes these unprecedented burdens, whose impacts are reflected in this Court's own COVID-19 emergency rules. But Petitioners have not demonstrated any significant harm to the public interest, or even to their own parochial interests, that would result from granting the requested extension. Indeed, Petitioners' previous stay motions seeking to delay the case from proceeding in state court pending Petitioners' appeals were each denied-by the district court, the Fourth Circuit, and this Court. See generally BP p.l.c. et al. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 140 S.Ct. 449 (Mem), 205 L.Ed.2d 265 (Oct. 22, 2019) (denying application for stay pending appeal). Petitioners have never been able to identify 100 Montgomery Street, Suite1410 - San Francisco, CA 94104 Office: (628) 231-2500 - sheredling.com

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most