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

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 24

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 06-144C (Judge Horn)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 17 days, to and including February 12, 2007, within which to file its summary judgment reply brief. Plaintiffs's counsel has indicated no opposition to this motion. Our reply brief is currently due on January 26, 2007. This is our first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Between the filing of PCL's summary judgment opposition brief on December 15, 2006, and the newly proposed deadline, in addition to the holiday season and the federal memorial holiday for President Ford, a number of intervening obligations and deadlines have been established or will take place in other cases before this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (examples include post trial brief in Moreland v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 03-2154C (December 18, 2006); summary judgment reply brief in SSA Marine v. United States, Fed. Cl. 05490C (January 5, 2007), appellee's brief due in Marshall v. Interior, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-1498 (January 5, 2007), oral argument in Reeves v. DVA, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-7240 (January 11,

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 24

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 2 of 4

2007), oral argument in Stevens v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 1278C (January 11, 2007), pretrial submissions in Metric Construction v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-954C (January 9 and 12, 2007), out of town depositions in GASA v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 01-642C (week of January 15, 2007), summary judgment reply brief in PCL v. United States, Fed. Cl. 06-144C (January 26, 2007); post trial reply brief in Moreland v. United States, Fed. Cl. 03-2154C (January 29, 2007); appellee's brief in Ide v. SSA, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-3302 (January 29, 2007); out of town pretrial activities in Metric Construction v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-954C (February 5-9, 2007)). In addition, PCL's

summary judgment opposition brief and appendix are voluminous, (the appendices occupy hundreds of pages), and will require a more lengthy reply time than the originally-contemplated time period. The enlargement is necessary to facilitate the completion of our summary judgment reply brief, provide adequate time for supervisory approval, and to ensure that it is thorough and of the most benefit to the Court. The enlargement period that is

requested is also designed to account for defendant's counsel's intervening obligations, described above. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this motion for an enlargement of 17 days be granted.

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 24

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/Deborah A. Bynum DEBORAH A. BYNUM Assistant Director s/Brian S. Smith BRIAN S. SMITH Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attention: Classification Unit 1100 L St. NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-0391 Attorneys for Defendant January 25, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 24

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on January 25, 2007, a copy of foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME" 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/Brian S. Smith