Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 129

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 1 of 4

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 06-407 T (into which have been consolidated Nos. 06-408T, 06-409T, 06-410T, 06-411T, 06-810T, 06-811T) (E-Filed: August 27, 2008)

) ALPHA I, L.P., BY AND THROUGH ROBERT ) SANDS, A NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) BETA PARTNERS, L.L.C., BY AND THROUGH ) ALPHA I, L.P., A NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) R, R, M & C PARTNERS, L.L.C., BY AND ) THROUGH R, R, M & C GROUP, L.P., A ) NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

06-407 T

06-408 T

06-409 T

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 129

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 2 of 4

) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) R, R, M & C GROUP, L.P., BY AND THROUGH ) ROBERT SANDS, A NOTICE PARTNER ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) CWC PARTNERSHIP I, BY AND THROUGH ) TRUST FBO ZACHARY STERN U/A FIFTH G, ) ANDREW STERN AND MARILYN SANDS, ) TRUSTEES, A NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) MICKEY MANAGEMENT, L.P., BY AND ) THROUGH MARILYN SANDS, A NOTICE ) PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) THE UNITED STATES,

06-410 T

06-411 T

06-810 T

2

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 129

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 3 of 4

) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) M, L, R & R, BY AND THROUGH RICHARD E. ) SANDS, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ORDER 1

06-811 T

Before the court is the United States' Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Excess of Twenty Pages (defendant's Motion or Def.'s Mot.), filed August 21, 2008, and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to United States' Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limitations (plaintiff's Response or Pls.' Resp.), filed August 26, 2008. Defendant "requests that the [c]ourt grant [defendant's Motion] and allow [defendant] to file a brief not exceeding 30 pages." Def.'s Mot. 2. Defendant argues that "[a]n extension of the page limitation will allow the United States to properly address the arguments briefed by the plaintiffs in their Response to the United States' Motion and will provide helpful information to this [c]ourt in analyzing the legal issues presented in the motion, responses and replies." Id. at 1. According to defendant, an extension of the page limitation is necessary to address adequately arguments raised for the first time in plaintiffs' response to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. These arguments concern "the constitutionality and

The case caption has been revised to reflect the case caption set out in the original complaint filed in Case No. 06-408 T, Complaint [of Beta] for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 (Beta Complaint or Beta Compl.), and Beta's First Amended Complaint for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 (Beta First Amended Complaint or Beta Amended Compl.). 3

1

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 129

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 4 of 4

validity of Treas. Reg. § 1.701-2" and "a reasonable cause defense to the application of penalties." Id. According to plaintiffs, however, both of these issues were raised in plaintiffs' original complaints and "[e]nlarging the page limits . . . gives defendant an unfair advantage and prejudices plaintiffs." Pls.' Resp. 1-2. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's Motion "should be denied because defendant is using the reply brief to raise new issues in its reply that should have been raised in its initial motion." Pls.' Resp. 1. In order to ensure that all arguments have been adequately addressed, defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant filed the United States' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 21, 2008, before the court ruled on defendant's Motion. The court received a deficiency notice from the Clerk of the Court stating that defendant's filings do not comply with the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should have been attached to defendant's Motion as an exhibit and not actually filed until after the motion was granted. Also, the index to the appendix should be in front of the brief with the table of contents as well as in front of the separate appendix. See RCFC 5.3(a)(1)(A), (G). The court will accept defendant's Response as it has been electronically filed, but the parties shall endeavor to make future filings in compliance with the RCFC. Plaintiffs assert that if defendant is allowed to file its motion with the enlarged page limit, plaintiffs "will have to seek leave to file a sur-reply to respond." Pls.' Resp. 2. On or before Monday, September 15, 2008, plaintiffs may, if they wish, file a sur-reply to the United States' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' sur-reply shall not exceed 15 pages. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Emily C. Hewitt EMILY C. HEWITT Judge

4