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

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 13

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE DALLES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 05-1042C (Judge Lettow)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests the Court to enlarge the deadline for defendant's reply to the response filed by plaintiff, the Dalles Irrigation District, to defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant requests that the current deadline for its reply (i.e., April 17, 2006) be enlarged by an additional 14 days, to and including May 1, 2006. This is defendant's second motion for this purpose. Counsel for defendant has conferred with counsel for plaintiff, and is authorized to state that plaintiff does not oppose this motion.1 This motion is necessary because of unanticipated difficulties experienced by undersigned counsel in completing defendant's reply. As noted in our first motion, undersigned counsel was recently assigned to this case after the departure

Defendant's first motion, also unopposed, requested 31 days and was granted by the Court on March 15, 2006.

1

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 13

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

of previous Department of Justice counsel of record. Undersigned counsel, however, has not had an adequate opportunity to complete defendant's reply brief because of the following commitments in other cases: (1) resolution of a dispute regarding a stipulation for military back pay in Strickland v. United States, (No. 03-1390) due April 13, 2006; (2) preparation of a cross-motion for summary judgment in Bair v. United States, (No. 04-1689), due April 17, 2006; (3) preparation for a settlement conference with the Court in SPW Engineering v. United States, (No. 04-794), to be held April 24, 2006 with position papers due April 14, 2006; (4) settlement proceedings, including a DCAA audit, in Columbia Mfg. v. United States, (No. 02-1221) with a conference to be held April 19, 2006; and (5) settlement discussions in Gregg, et al. v. United States, (No. 04-425). The above-described commitments will not permit undersigned counsel sufficient time to complete defendant's reply. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests the Court to grant this unopposed motion to enlarge the deadline for its reply to plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss by 14 days, to and including May 1, 2006. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 13

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

DAVID M. COHEN Director /s/ Franklin E. White, Jr. FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. Assistant Director /s/ Gregory T. Jaeger GREGORY T. JAEGER Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 353-7955 April 13, 2006 Attorneys for Defendant

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-01042-CFL

Document 13

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on April 13, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 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/Gregory T. Jaeger