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

Case 1:08-cv-00238-TCW

Document 40

Filed 05/26/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS (BID PROTEST) AMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 08-238C ) (Judge Wheeler) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant ) PLAINTIFF AMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE ITS REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S AND INTERVENOR'S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD By order of ____, the Court granted Intervenor [BAE Systems'] request for additional time within which it, and the Government, could file their respective Responses to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and their own Motions. The Court set the date for these filings at June 6. Prior to BAE's intervention, the Court's April 8, 2008 Scheduling Order had previously set the date for the Government's Response and Motion at May 30, and Plaintiff's Reply at June 13. Plaintiff requests that it be permitted to extend the date by which it is required to file its Reply by a number of days comparable to that by which Defendant and Intervenor's filings dates were extended. Plaintiff requests that it be permitted to file its Reply by June 18. BAE elected to intervene in this protest at the last possible admissible point. BAE had been an intervenor in the series of protests Plaintiff had entertained at the Government Accountability Office from December 10, 2007 through April 4, 2008 when Plaintiff moved its protest from the GAO to the Court. Plaintiff served Intervenor BAE with its April 1, 2008 Notice of Intent to file this Protest. [sent copy of filing, Mike?]. However, BAE elected not

1

Case 1:08-cv-00238-TCW

Document 40

Filed 05/26/2008

Page 2 of 3

to intervene in this protest until more than a month later. Plaintiff based its decision not to object to BAE's belated request to intervene in the Protest on the understanding the schedule the Court had set in its April 8, 2008 Scheduling Order would not be changed by reason of BAE's intervention. Had Plaintiff known that BAE intended to seek extensions in the schedule it would have opposed BAE's intervention. With BAE's intervention, Plaintiff will be responding to two filings instead of merely the Government's filing. Plaintiff respectfully requests that it be granted the same extension that was granted to Intervenor, and the Government, making its Reply due on June 18.

/s/ Stuart B. Nibley

2

Case 1:08-cv-00238-TCW

Document 40

Filed 05/26/2008

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 27th day of May, 2007, I caused to be electronically filed a copy of "PLAINTIFF AMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE ITS REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S AND INTERVENOR'S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD". I understand that notice of this filing will be provided to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's electronic filing system.

/s/ Stuart B. Nibley

3