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

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 29

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

THE DALLES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Defendant ________________________________

Case No. 05-1042 C Judge Charles F. Lettow

Motion Response and Scheduling Conference Request

Defendant's Counsel did not inform me that Defendant sought a three-day extension of time. Of course, we do not oppose such an extension. Footnote 1 to the Defendant's Motion inadequately expresses our concern: the Court's scheduling order of September 13, 2006, contemplated a rebuttal report for the Plaintiff, after the Defendant filed its report, in response to the Plaintiff's report. The Government should not have the opportunity to foreclose Plaintiff from providing an appropriate expert rebuttal, and Plaintiff requests that opportunity be afforded, within a reasonable time after receiving the Government's report, now intended by the Government for January 19, 2007. Government's counsel in our telephone conversation on January 16, 2007, did not ask whether we would oppose the Motion for an

Page 1 Motion Response and Scheduling Conference Request

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 29

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 2 of 3

Enlargement of Time, nor was there any inquiry made of me whether opposition would be filed. If asked, I certainly would have responded that we continue to act consistently on all of the Government's many requests for extensions: if they are of short duration we do not object. What I informed Government counsel was that the Government's expert report was more than a month overdue. Ours was the opportunity for the filing of a rebuttal report. Government counsel and I discussed having a further scheduling conference with the Court in person, at some time on February 26-- 27, 2007, when Plaintiff's counsel will be in the District of Columbia, and Government's counsel will be available. If some other date is more convenient for the Court, a telephonic scheduling conference can be arranged.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007 SHENKER & BONAPARTE, LLP By:__/s/ Arden E. Shenker_____ Arden E. Shenker OSB No. 62082 [email protected] Shenker & Bonaparte, LLP One SW Columbia, Ste. 475 Portland OR 97258-2002 Telephone: 503-294-1118 Facsimile: 503-294-0015 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THE DALLES IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Page 2 Motion Response and Scheduling Conference Request

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 29

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Filing I hereby certify that on the 18th day of January, 2007, a copy of the foregoing Motion Response and Scheduling Conference Request 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.

SHENKER & BONAPARTE, LLP /s/ Arden E. Shenker ______________________________ Arden E. Shenker, OSB No. 62082 Shenker & Bonaparte, LLP One SW Columbia, Ste. 475 Portland OR 97258-2002 Telephone: 503-294-1118 Facsimile: 503-294-0015 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: THE DALLES IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Page 1 ­ CERTIFICATE OF FILING