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

Case 1:06-cv-00418-NBF

Document 15

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS HOH RIVER TIMBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-418C (Judge Firestone)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to United States Court of Federal Claims Rule 6.1, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 24 days, from September 22, 2006, through and including October 16, 2006, to respond to plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not We previously have been granted an

oppose this motion.

enlargement of time of 60 days for this purpose. In this case, plaintiff challenges a contracting officer's final decision imposing liability upon plaintiff due to its failure to comply with its contractual obligations. The contract We

at issue has a lengthy history dating back to at least 1993. have received the agency's litigation report and are in the process of preparing our response to the complaint. However,

prior to finalizing the Government's response, undersigned counsel of record must discuss a number of issues with agency counsel, submit the response for agency and internal review, and

Case 1:06-cv-00418-NBF

Document 15

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 2 of 4

make any additional changes that may be required as a result. Therefore, an enlargement of time is necessary. Further, in addition to this case, undersigned counsel of record is responsible for the following matters, among others, that have required his attention, or that will require his attention: (1) Hooker v. United States, Fed. Cl. Nos. 03-1501C and 04-1126C (cross-motion for summary judgment and response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed September 7, 2006); (2) Nguyen v. United States, CIT No. 06-138 (reply to plaintiff's opposition to Government's motion to dismiss due September 27, 2006); (3) Oak Environmental Consultants, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-113 (joint stipulation of facts filed September 22, 2006; Government's motion for summary judgment due September 26, 2006); (4) Brooks v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 03-2470 (privilege log due September 22, 2006); (5) Patrick v. United States, 06-7254 (Government's brief due September 29, 2006); (6) Stone v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 06-7069 (oral argument scheduled for October 3, 2006); and (7) Hicks v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-1058 (October 6, 2006 discovery cutoff). We are

seeking enlargements in the Patrick and Oak cases as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion for an enlargement of time,

- 2 -

Case 1:06-cv-00418-NBF

Document 15

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 3 of 4

through and including October 16, 2006, for the Government to file its response to plaintiff's amended complaint. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/Kathryn A. Bleecker by SJG KATHRYN A. BLEECKER Assistant Director s/Richard P. Schroeder RICHARD P. SCHROEDER Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit Eighth Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7562 Attorneys for Defendant September 22, 2006

- 3 -

Case 1:06-cv-00418-NBF

Document 15

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 22nd day of September 2006, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. s/Richard P. Schroeder