Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:00-cv-00644-NBF

Document 111

Filed 07/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WILLIAM A. CLARK, et. al. Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 00-644 (Chief Judge Damich)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the United States respectfully requests an enlargement of time of seven days, to and including July 18, 2005, to submit its reply to plaintiffs' response to our motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the Court's Order dated May 16, 2005, the Government's reply is now due on or before July 11, 2005. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for these purposes. Counsel for defendant has discussed this motion with plaintiffs' counsel, and plaintiffs do not oppose this request. An brief enlargement of time is necessary because the Government has not received final substantive comments from various agencies throughout the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, and the National Guard Bureau regarding the initial draft of the reply.1 The agency's substantive comments, which we expect to receive within the

The Department of Justice is obligated to consult with senior officials throughout the Department of Defense in this matter because of the issues in this case are fundamental to military policy regarding training the force. Furthermore, coordination between the various services and agency counsel regarding the initial draft reply has been limited because of the protected nature of some of the information contained in plaintiffs' response.

1

Case 1:00-cv-00644-NBF

Document 111

Filed 07/07/2005

Page 2 of 3

next few days, will then need to be incorporated into a draft brief that then must undergo the review process within the Department of Justice. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed request for an enlargement of time of four days until July 18, 2005 in which defendant can file its reply to plaintiffs' response to our motion for summary judgement. Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/James M. Kinsella by Bryant G. Snee JAMES M. KINSELLA Deputy Director

OF COUNSEL: MAJOR CHRIS SOUCIE MAJOR GARY CORN United States Army Litigation Division Arlington, VA 22203-1837 LT. COL. JOSEPH WENDLBERGER United States Air Force General Litigation Division CAPTAIN CHRIS BROWN National Guard Bureau Office of Chief Counsel

s/Douglas K. Mickle DOUGLAS K. MICKLE Trial Attorney National Courts Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel. (202) 353-7961 Fax (202) 353-7988

Attorneys for Defendant July 7, 2005

2

Case 1:00-cv-00644-NBF

Document 111

Filed 07/07/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on July 7, 2005, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/Douglas K. Mickle Douglas K. Mickle