Case 1:07-cv-00355-NBF
Document 29
Filed 09/10/2008
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
TEXAS NATIONAL BANK f/k/a MERCEDES NATIONAL BANK Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant
Court No. 07-355C Judge Firestone
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) and 6.1 of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests a 15-day enlargement of time, to and including September 25, 2008, to file Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendant's Reply"), Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact ("Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts"), Defendant's Motion to Strike Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Declaration of Cheryl Bellamy ("Defendant's Motion to Strike"), and Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Summary Judgment Evidence ("Defendant's Opposition"). Defendant's Reply, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts, Defendant's Motion to Strike, and Defendant's Opposition are currently due on September 10, 2008. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement for this purpose. Tara Kilfoyle, a Trial Attorney with the Commercial Litigation Branch of the United States Department of Justice, is handling counsel for defendant's cases while counsel for defendant is on leave. Ms. Kilfoyle has attempted to contact counsel for plaintiff, Edward Snyder, to inquire whether plaintiff opposes this request for an enlargement of time. Ms. Kilfoyle left Mr. Snyder a voicemail regarding the
Case 1:07-cv-00355-NBF
Document 29
Filed 09/10/2008
Page 2 of 3
requested enlargement on September 9, 2008, but to date, has been unable to determine whether plaintiff opposes this request for an enlargement of time. The requested enlargement of time is necessary because counsel for defendant is on leave for her wedding and honeymoon until September 23, 2008. Prior to going on leave, counsel for defendant submitted Defendant's Reply, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts, Defendant's Motion to Strike, and Defendant's Opposition for review by supervisory attorneys at the Department of Justice. After reviewing Defendant's Reply, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts, Defendant's Motion to Strike, and Defendant's Opposition, supervisory attorneys at the Department of Justice provided substantive questions and comments that Ms. Kilfoyle, who is unfamiliar with this case, was unable to address in counsel for defendant's absence. Ms. Kilfoyle has attempted to reach counsel for defendant to discuss these substantive questions and comments, but has been unable to do so. Accordingly, the requested enlargement of time is necessary for counsel for defendant to return from her wedding and honeymoon, review and discuss the questions and comments from supervisory attorneys at the Department of Justice, and incorporate them into Defendant's Reply, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts, Defendant's Motion to Strike, and Defendant's Opposition. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for a 15-day enlargement of time, to and including September 25, 2008, within which to file Defendant's Reply, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Facts, Defendant's Motion to Strike, and Defendant's Opposition.
Case 1:07-cv-00355-NBF
Document 29
Filed 09/10/2008
Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Mark A. Melnick MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: ANDREW JONES Office of Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Customs and Border Protection 6650 Telecom Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46278 s/ Joan M. Stentiford by s/ Tara J. Kilfoyle JOAN M. STENTIFORD Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Department of Justice Phone: (202) 616-0341 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant
September 10, 2008