Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00280-LJB

Document 27

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 1 of 3

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-280 C (June 12, 2007) ********************* IRONCLAD/EEI, A Joint Venture, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant, * * CAMPBELL ROOFING & * CONSTRUCTION, INC., * * MGC/CAMPBELL ROOFING & * CONSTRUCTION, INC., * * Intervenor-defendants. * ********************* ORDER Late in the evening on June 11, 2007, plaintiff Ironclad-EEI, A Joint Venture (Ironclad) submitted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time of thirty days, to and including July 23, 2007. Counsel for Ironclad states that he has recently completed review of the administrative record filed in this bid protest action and has "found it to be deficient in some respects." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. Counsel for Ironclad states further that he is currently working to create a list of additional documents which plaintiff will ask the government to produce and add to the administrative record, and that counsel for defendant "advised she will review the discovery requests and attempt to resolve the matter directly with undersigned counsel." Id. Accordingly, plaintiff requests an enlargement of time of thirty days, to and including July 23, 2007, within which to file its motion for judgment on the

Case 1:07-cv-00280-LJB

Document 27

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 2 of 3

administrative record, and a corresponding enlargement of time for all other filing deadlines and for the oral argument scheduled in this case. At the start of this lawsuit the court set forth a schedule which allowed a reasonable amount of time for all parties to litigate this action and for the court to issue a timely decision. From the outset, the parties to this suit have been advised repeatedly that no requests for enlargement of time would be entertained in this action absent extraordinary circumstances. Indeed, counsel for plaintiff and defendant were so advised in writing in the court's initial scheduling order issued on May 9, 2007, and again in the court's May 21, 2007 order granting motions to intervene by Campbell Roofing & Construction, Inc. and MGC/Campbell Roofing & Construction, Inc. and updating the scheduling order to accommodate filings by those intervenors. See Order at 3 ("The court does not anticipate any requests for extensions of time, absent extraordinary circumstances."); Amended Scheduling Order at 2 ("As the parties have been previously advised, absent extraordinary circumstances, the court will not entertain any request for an enlargement of time in the schedule."). The record before the court indicates that the United States filed the administrative record in this matter on May 22, 2007. In the days that followed, the court reminded the parties by telephone of the steps to be taken to gain access to that record, as well as the fact that no requests for enlargement of time would be entertained by the court. Nonetheless, plaintiff now requests an enlargement of time within which to file its motion for judgment on the administrative record. In the pending motion, counsel for Ironclad admits that he commenced review of the administrative record approximately two weeks after it was filed, but has not attempted to justify that delay. In the court's view, no extraordinary circumstances have been alleged by plaintiff which justify an enlargement of time.1 Further, it is worth noting that the court rejected the parties' proposed scheduling order in this case, which suggested filing dates similar to those now requested. The court initially found those proposed dates to be unacceptable in light of this suit's characterization as a bid protest action, and it repeats that conclusion here.

/ Despite plaintiff's counsel's delay in requesting that additional documents be included in the administrative record, the court expects the government to expedite its document production to the greatest extent possible. 2

1

Case 1:07-cv-00280-LJB

Document 27

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed June 11, 2007, is DENIED, for the reasons stated herein. s/ Lynn J. Bush LYNN J. BUSH Judge

3