Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:90-cv-00162-LJB

Document 639

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS STEPHEN S. ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 90-162C and consolidated cases (Judge Bush)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the Rules of this Court, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests a 14-day enlargement of time, to and including May 14, 2007, within which to respond and reply to plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to criminal investigators employed by the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to criminal investigators employed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and proposed findings of uncontroverted fact accompanying each crossmotion (collectively "plaintiffs' cross-motions"). Currently, our response and reply to plaintiffs' cross-motions are due on April 30, 2007. This is the defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Counsel for plaintiffs indicated that plaintiffs will not oppose this motion. This 14-day request for an enlargement is necessitated by the fact that, since plaintiffs filed their cross-motions on March 29, 2007, the attorney primarily responsible for responding to plaintiffs' cross-motions, William Rayel, had to respond to two briefs in the Federal Circuit in cases for which he is the principal attorney for a respondent or intervenor. Also, defendant's

Case 1:90-cv-00162-LJB

Document 639

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 2 of 2

attorney of record, Shalom Brilliant, was out of the office from April 2 through April 10, 2007, for the Passover holiday. Additionally, plaintiffs' cross-motions are each over 40 pages in length, with appendices totaling 680 pages. Although the law is similar, if not identical, for the HHS and HUD plaintiffs, there are some differences in the duties of some of the HUD plaintiffs, which will require variations in our separate responses and replies to each cross-motion. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant defendant an enlargement of time of 14 days, to and including May 14, 2007, within which to respond and reply to plaintiffs' cross-motions. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Jeanne E. Davidson JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

OF COUNSEL: Michael J. Dierberg William P. Rayel Trial Attorneys Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice

/s/ Shalom Brilliant SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202)616-8275 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

April 20, 2007