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

Case 1:06-cv-00377-GWM

Document 13

Filed 01/12/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ROME RESEARCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-377C (Judge George W. Miller)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Pursuant to United States Court of Federal Claims Rule 6.1, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 14 days, from January 12, 2007, through and including January 26, 2007, to respond to the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that plaintiff does not take a position regarding this motion and that plaintiff may or may not file a response. for this purpose. This case has been stayed since July 11, 2006, first to await the Federal Circuit's decision in Lear Siegler Serv., Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 06-1080; second to await the exhaustion of any further appeals in that matter by the Government; and third, to provide the parties with the opportunity to conduct settlement discussions. on January 12, 2007. The parties previously reported that they had agreed, in principle, to a proposed partial settlement, that could be The stay expires No prior enlargement of time has been granted

Case 1:06-cv-00377-GWM

Document 13

Filed 01/12/2007

Page 2 of 5

recommended to the authorized representative of the Attorney General, regarding plaintiff's largest claim. Despite the

parties' efforts, the settlement has not been finalized because, before undersigned counsel can submit the required internal settlement memorandum, the agency must conduct a review regarding the issue of quantum. Rather than seeking a substantial

enlargement or a further stay for this purpose, we believe that it would be more efficient to respond to the entire complaint, including the paragraphs that are the subject of the proposed settlement. Responding to the complaint will not prevent the

parties from continuing to work to finalize the proposed partial settlement, or prevent them from continuing discussions aimed at settling the balance of the case. The Government is in the process of preparing its response to the complaint. However, additional information is required

from agency counsel, including the final agency litigation report, prior to filing our response. Further, prior to filing

our response, we must submit the response for internal review and make any additional changes that may be required as a result. An enlargement of time is required for other reasons as well. First, undersigned counsel was on leave from December 26, Second, undersigned counsel was

2006 through December 29, 2006.

out of the office, in South Carolina, from January 8, 2007 through January 10, 2007, for depositions in Hooker v. United

- 2 -

Case 1:06-cv-00377-GWM

Document 13

Filed 01/12/2007

Page 3 of 5

States, Consol. Nos. 03-1501C, 04-1126C.

Third, undersigned

counsel is responsible for a large number of matters that recently have required his attention, or that will require his attention in the coming days. These matters include, among others: (1) Hicks v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-1058C (response to motion to intervene filed January 8, 2007); (2) Brooks v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 03-2470 (hearing on motion to compel conducted January 11, 2007); (3) Hoh River Timber Co. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-418C (joint preliminary status report due January 12, 2007); (4) Friedman v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-1355C (Government's reply brief due January 18, 2007); (5) Davis v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-507C (Government's response to amended complaint due January 22, 2007); (6) Bland v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-557C (ADR before a settlement judge scheduled for January 24, 2007 in Bland and six related cases); and (7) Tara Materials, Inc. v. United States, CIT No. 06-142 (Government's response to plaintiff's motion for judgment upon the agency record due January 26, 2007). Counsel intends to seek

enlargements in the Hoh River, Friedman, and Tara cases as well. Finally, Monday, January 15, 2007 is a Federal holiday. Undersigned counsel also will be out of the office for at least a portion of the day on January 19, 2007 for a dentist appointment. Accordingly, a 14-day enlargement of time is necessary.

- 3 -

Case 1:06-cv-00377-GWM

Document 13

Filed 01/12/2007

Page 4 of 5

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for an enlargement of time, through and including January 26, 2007, to respond to the complaint in this action. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE 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) 305-7788 Attorneys for Defendant January 12, 2007

- 4 -

Case 1:06-cv-00377-GWM

Document 13

Filed 01/12/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 12th day of January 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 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