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

Case 1:07-cv-00285-MMS

Document 13

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

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

Hon. Margaret M. Sweeney

No. 07-285

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY PERIOD Defendant, United States of America, hereby respectfully moves to revise the discovery schedule in the above referenced matter. By an Order dated November 1, 2007, the Court set February 1, 2007, as the closing date for fact discovery in this case. (Docket No. 12). Due to certain developments in the discovery process Defendant respectfully requests a ninety (90) day extension of the period for fact discovery, or to and including May 1, 2008. Pursuant to this Court's Order of November 1, 2007, the parties entered into discovery. At that time, Counsel for Defendant informed the Court that the lack of a federal budget would, for a time, impede Defendant's acquisition of an expert to appraise the property at issue in this matter. Defendant estimated that if there were no complications discovery could be completed within 90 days. Accordingly, the Court issued an order initiating 90 days of discovery but stated in the order that it would "look favorably upon Defendant's request for an extension, provided it was reasonable." (Doc No. 12). Defendant's estimated time to complete discovery relied upon the assumption that a federal budget would be in place by December 1, 2007. However, the federal budget was not

Case 1:07-cv-00285-MMS

Document 13

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

signed into effect until December 26, 2007. Additionally, Defendant's estimate of the time necessary for discovery did not include time for either party to conduct depositions of the appraisers in this case. This request is also meant to addresses that deficiency. Throughout November and early December of 2007, Defendant contacted seven appraisers to discuss the appraisal of the subject property. For reasons varying from an inability to conduct the appraisal in a timely manner to a professed inability to be objective in the appraisal of Plaintiff's property, none of the initial appraisers contacted by Counsel for Defendant were engaged to evaluate the subject property. On December 20, 2007, Defendant spoke to Robert J. Vertalka, MAI, who agreed to conduct the valuation of Plaintiffs' property. Mr. Vertalka agreed to conduct the appraisal and, following the holidays and New Year, submitted the information necessary to his engagement as an expert for the Defendant. That contract is in the process of being finalized and the resulting appraisal is expected to be completed prior to April 1, 2008. Counsel for Defendant contacted Counsel for Plaintiff on January 24 and January 25 in order to obtain Plaintiff's position on this motion. In a telephone conversation on January 25, an attorney from the offices of Plaintiff's Counsel informed Defendant that Counsel for Plaintiffs was in trial and he would contact Defendant with Plaintiff's position. It was also represented that Plaintiff would probably not consent to this motion. As of the time of this filing, Defendant has not received Plaintiff's definitive position on this request. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for completion of discovery be extended ninety (90) days, or to and including May 1, 2008. Dated: January 29, 2008.

Case 1:07-cv-00285-MMS

Document 13

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division s/ Mark T. Romley Mark T. Romley Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice P. O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 Telephone: (202) 305-0458 Fax: (202) 305-0274