Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01179-MBH

Document 15

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) RITA MOHLEN and RICHARD SKRINDE,

No. 05-1179L Hon. Marian Blank Horn

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REVISE THE DISCOVERY SCHEDULE To the extent that the motion of defendant implies that there has been a lack of cooperation or agreement concerning discovery, we believe this confusion arises from defense counsel having been unaware that counsel for plaintiff was gone on vacation, and just returned on August 24. We believe that there has been and continues to be good cooperation between counsel.

We agree with the need to extend the discovery cutoff. Defendant has requested the deposition of plaintiffs, and plaintiffs have agreed to travel to Washington, D. C., for that purpose on September 19.

Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of several present and former employees of

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-01179-MBH

Document 15

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 2 of 2

the government. None of these have yet taken place. Counsel for defendant advises that some of these employees have retired, and others have moved. The government is working on obtaining dates and places for these depositions.

Plaintiffs have now responded to the discovery propounded by the government, and are conferring to determine whether there is anything more which the government desires to have produced.

Dated: August 28, 2006

____________________ Laurence F. Padway Attorney for plaintiffs

Laurence F. Padway Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway 1516 Oak Street, Suite 109 Alameda, California 94501 Tel: 510-814-6100 Fax: 510-814-0650 E-mail: LP@padway,com

Page 2 of 2