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


File Size: 12.7 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 16, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 441 Words, 2,747 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22961/43.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims ( 12.7 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:08-cv-00062-MCW

Document 43

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS RKR JOINT VENTURE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 08-62C (Judge Williams)

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 10-day enlargement of time within which to respond to the second motion of plaintiff, RKR Joint Venture, LLC. ("RKR"), for leave to supplement the administrative record ("motion to supplement"). Currently, our response is due on July 21, 2008. The extension would bring the date for responding to the motion to supplement to July 31, 2008, the same date that our response to RKR's motion for partial judgment on the administrative record is due. This is the defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Counsel for RKR has indicated that RKR is not opposed to this motion. Counsel for RKR has also indicated that RKR would like its reply brief for the motion to supplement to be due on August 21, 2008, the same date that its reply brief for its partial motion for judgment on the administrative record is due. This 10-day request for enlargement of time is necessitated so that the Government may respond to RKR's motion to supplement the administrative record on the same day that it responds to RKR's motion for partial judgment on the administrative record, which is due on July 31, 2008. Because our arguments regarding why the Court should deny RKR's motion for judgment on the administrative record may be linked to our arguments regarding why the Court

Case 1:08-cv-00062-MCW

Document 43

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 2 of 2

should deny RKR's motion to supplement the administrative record, it would be most efficient to file our responses to the two motions simultaneously. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant defendant's unopposed motion for an enlargement of time of 10 days, through and including July 31, 2008, within which to respond to plaintiff's second motion for leave to supplement the administrative record. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director /s/ Donald E. Kinner DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director

OF COUNSEL: Gary R. Allen Air Force Legal Operations Agency, Commercial Litigation Division 1501 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Rosslyn, VA 22209

/s/ William P. Rayel WILLIAM P. RAYEL Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 616-0302 Fax. (202) 307-0972 Attorneys for Defendant

July 16, 2008