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

Case 1:05-cv-01020-MMS

Document 51

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,

No. 05-1020C Judge Margaret M. Sweeney

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiff American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company ("Plaintiff" or "AISLIC"), by and through its undersigned attorneys, respectfully opposes Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time, for all of the reasons previously set forth in Plaintiff's Proposed Schedule for Further Proceedings in this Case (Dkt. 47), as well as Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 45). This litigation should not be stayed simply because Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 6, 2007 Order is pending. The Court issued a clear directive to the parties to "file a joint proposed schedule for further proceedings in this case no later than Wednesday, February 28, 2007." Dkt. 42 at 7 (emphasis in original). Defendant acknowledges in its motion that it declined to participate in establishing a joint proposed schedule, and Defendant waited until the last moment to file its motion, effectively securing its desired delay without order of the Court.1 At a minimum, Defendant should have worked with Plaintiff to establish a schedule to be implemented after the Court rules on the motion for reconsideration.

1

Due to Defendant's refusal to participate in establishing a joint schedule and its motion for enlargement of time, Plaintiff has not yet implemented its proposed schedule.

4875744

Case 1:05-cv-01020-MMS

Document 51

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

Defendant's dilatory conduct is undermining the efficient administration of justice. The Government has failed to show good cause for reconsideration, and its renewed attempt to stay discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Reliance Ins. Co. v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 359, 360 (1989) ("suspension of discovery is not always appropriate when a dispositive motion is pending"); Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.Nev. 1989)("a pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery"). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff urges this Court to deny Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time. Respectfully submitted, s/T. Michael Guiffré T. Michael Guiffré J. Gordon Arbuckle Daniel R. Addison PATTON BOGGS LLP 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 457-6000 Facsimile: (202) 457-6315 Attorneys for Plaintiff American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company March 19, 2007

4875744

2

Case 1:05-cv-01020-MMS

Document 51

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I certify that on March 19, 2007, the foregoing Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's 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/T. Michael Guiffré T. Michael Guiffré

4875744