Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00285-MMS

Document 14

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ELIP, LLC,

Honorable Margaret M. Sweeney No. 07-285

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PERIOD NOW COMES the Plaintiff ELIP, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, by and through its attorneys, The Abood Law Firm and Andrew P. Abood, and hereby submits the following in Response to Defendant United States' Motion to Extend the Discovery Period: Defendant's lack of due diligence and unnecessary delay should preclude the Court from extending the discovery period in this case. Defendant admits that he waited until "November and early December of 2007 [to] contact[] seven appraisers to discuss the appraisal of the subject property." But Defendant had ample opportunity to obtain an appraisal before then. Defendant has been in continuous possession of the subject property since July of 1994, nearly fourteen years ago. Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of this dispute in 2002, when Defendant ceased paying rent to for using the property. Plaintiff put Defendant on further notice of this dispute on May 5, 2007, when Plaintiff filed its Complaint (Docket No. 1). Counsel had no reason to wait until "November and early December of 2007," since he had, at the very least, as early as May 5, 2007, to obtain an appraisal when this suit commenced. Assuming, arguendo, that Defendant's unnecessary delay does not preclude the Court from extending discovery, Defendant's request for an extension to May 1, 2008, is unreasonable.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00285-MMS

Document 14

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 2 of 2

Counsel for Defendant admits that he has already secured Robert J. Vertalka, MAI, to appraise the property. According to counsel, "the contract [with Mr. Vertalka] is in the process of being finalized and the resulting appraisal is expected to be completed prior to April 1, 2008." Before April 1, 2008, that is ­ not as late as May 1, 2008, which counsel suggests he needs to prepare for this case. That an appraisal would take until April 1, 2008, is unlikely. Plaintiff, for example, diligently prepared for its case by obtaining an appraisal in a matter of weeks. Counsel for Defendant asks the Court to foist Defendant's problems on Plaintiff. Counsel for Defendant, not Plaintiff, simply assumed that "the federal budget would be in place,"so he delayed even searching for an appraiser. Counsel for Defendant, not Plaintiff, waited at least since May 5, 2007, to search for an appraiser. Counsel for Defendant, not Plaintiff, made the errors. To grant Defendant an extension of discovery will force Plaintiff to bear the costs for Defendant's errors and unnecessarily delay a resolution to this case. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ELIP, LLC, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Motion to Extend the Discovery Period or, in the alternative, to enter an Order for discovery to terminate on or before April 1, 2008. Respectfully submitted, THE ABOOD LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: February 11, 2008

/s/ Andrew P. Abood___________ Andrew P. Abood (P43366) 246 East Saginaw Street, Suite 100 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 (517) 332-5900 / (517) 332-0700

2