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

Case 1:05-cv-00981-MMS

Document 41

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 1 of 5

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

No. 05-981 (Judge Sweeney)

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant respectfully submits this response to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Scheduling Order ("Plaintiff's Motion"), filed October 8, 2007, and respectfully requests an extension of time within which to file its response to plaintiff's motion to compel, and further requests an extension of time within which to serve the report of its expert. Response To Plaintiff's Motion Plaintiff's Motion seeks an enlargement of 22 days within which to serve its expert's report. Although the Government

takes exception to plaintiff's assertion that an enlargement of time is necessary, in part, due to the Government's failure to produce documents, we do not oppose plaintiff's motion. Motions For Enlargements 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 16 days, to and including October 31, 2007, within which to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel,

Case 1:05-cv-00981-MMS

Document 41

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 2 of 5

filed September 27, 2007. October 15, 2007.

Our response is presently due on

This is our first request for an enlargement Plaintiff has been contacted and does

of time for this purpose.

not oppose this request for an enlargement of time. Respondent requests additional time within which to complete its response brief as the result of respondent's counsel's obligations in several other cases. In the ten days following

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, Griffin v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 07-318 and Webb v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 073085 and will be participating in a settlement conference in Veridyne v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-150. Therefore,

additional time is required in this case in order for respondent'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 05-1054, which raise issues similar to the issues raised in plaintiff's motion to compel in this case. The defendant's responses to those motions to compel

are due on October 25, 2007, but plaintiff has consented to an enlargement of the due date for the defendant's responses to

Case 1:05-cv-00981-MMS

Document 41

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 3 of 5

those motions to October 31, 2007.

Thus, assuming that the Court

grants defendant's motions in the other cases, 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. In addition, we respectfully request an enlargement of time of 22 days, to and including November 30, 2007, within which to serve the report of defendant's expert. This requested change

corresponds to the enlargement requested by plaintiff, and is for the sole purpose of maintaining the existing amount of time between the due date for the plaintiff's expert's report and the due date for the defendant's expert's report. report presently is due on November 8, 2007. Our expert's 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. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its unopposed motion for an enlargement of time.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Deputy Director

Case 1:05-cv-00981-MMS

Document 41

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 4 of 5

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 October 11, 2007

Case 1:05-cv-00981-MMS

Document 41

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on this 11th day of October 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND 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. through the Court's system. Parties may access this filing

s/ Robert E. Chandler