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

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 23

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS K-CON BUILDING SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-1054 (Judge Block)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), defendant requests an enlargement of time of 6 days, to and including October 31, 2007, within which to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel. response is presently due on October 25, 2007. Our

This is our first Plaintiff

request for an enlargement of time for this purpose.

has been contacted and does not oppose this request for an enlargement of time. Defendant requests additional time within which to complete its response brief as the result of defendant's counsel's obligations in several other cases. In the two weeks surrounding

the due date for defendant's response in this case, defendant's counsel is responsible for submitting briefs in Amerisource v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 07-5121 (brief submitted October 17, 2007), Griffin v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 07-318 (brief submitted October 18, 2007) and Webb v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 07-3085 (brief due October 23, 2007), a motion in Gulf Group Enterprises v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-858 (motion due

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 23

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 2 of 4

October 23, 2007) and will be participating in a settlement conference in Veridyne v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-150 on October 24, 2007. Therefore, additional time is requested in

this case in order for defendant's counsel to consult with the agency, prepare the Government's response brief and to obtain agency and internal review of the brief. In addition, the parties would benefit from the enlargement of time requested by defendant because it would have the effect of synchronizing the briefing schedules in the three cases between plaintiff and the Government. Plaintiff has filed

motions to compel in its two other lawsuits against the United States, Fed. Cl. Nos. 05-914 and 05-981, which raise issues similar to the issues raised in plaintiff's motion to compel in this case. The Court in No. 05-981 already has granted our

motion for enlargement extending the due date for our response brief in that case to October 31, 2007. The due date in matter

No. 05-914 (also pending before Judge Block) is October 25, 2007, but plaintiff has consented to an enlargement in that case to October 31, 2007, and we have submitted a motion for enlargement in that case concurrent with the filing of this motion. Thus,

assuming that the Court grants defendant's motion in matter No. 05-914, the parties would benefit from a enlargement in this case because it would have the effect of creating parallel briefing schedules for the three cases. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its unopposed motion for an enlargement of time.

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 23

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Deputy Director s/ Robert E. Chandler ROBERT E. CHANDLER Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 514-4678 Attorneys for Defendant October 19, 2007

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 23

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of October 2007, a copy of the 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. filing through the Court's system. Parties may access this

s/ Robert E. Chandler