Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 27

Filed 08/01/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CALIFORNIA OREGON BROADCASTING, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-116C Judge Firestone

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests a seven-day enlargement of time, to and including August 8, 2006, within which to file its reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Our response is currently due on August 1, 2006. This is defendant's second request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. An enlargement of eight days was previously granted by this Court. Defendant's counsel contacted plaintiff's counsel, who states that plaintiff does not object to this motion This motion is necessary to afford the Government sufficient time to draft an appropriate reply brief, incorporate comments of agency counsel, and obtain review of its reply brief. Plaintiff filed its response brief on July 7, 2006. Government counsel was out of the office from July 10, 2006 through July 20, 2006, to take and defend depositions in Redding, San Francisco, and Sacramento, California in Ralph Franklin & Son Logging v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 041679. When Government counsel drafted its first request for an enlargement of time and contacted plaintiff's counsel regarding the same, Government counsel expected to take thirdparty depositions in Redding, California for Ralph Franklin & Son Logging v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-1679, during the week of July 31, 2006. However, due to a conflict in the schedules

Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 27

Filed 08/01/2006

Page 2 of 2

of the third-party deponents, the depositions were moved to July 27-28, 2006. Accordingly, after returning to the office on July 24, 2006, Government counsel was once again required to be out of the office from July 26, 2006 through July 29, 2006 to take depositions in Redding, California. Accordingly, defendant seeks a modest enlargement of an additional three days to file its reply brief. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed motion for an enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/Mark A. Melnick MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: PAULA LEE Office of the Solicitor Pacific Southwest Region 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 735 Oakland, California 94607 s/Marla T. Conneely MARLA T. CONNEELY Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street Washington, D.C. 20530 tel: (202) 307-1011 fax: (202) 307-0972 Attorneys for Defendant

August 1, 2006

2