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

Case 1:05-cv-00956-CCM

Document 139

Filed 01/22/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS DAVID S. LITMAN and MALIA A. LITMAN, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Counterplaintiff ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ROBERT B. DIENER and MICHELLE S. DIENER, ) Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants, ) v. ) THE UNITED STATES, ) Defendant-Counterplaintiff ) ____________________________________ ) ) HOTELS.COM, INC. and Subsidiaries (f/k/a ) HOTEL RESERVATIONS NETWORK, INC.) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) THE UNITED STATES, ) Defendant ) ____________________________________ )

No. 05-956T

No. 05-971T

No. 06-285T (Judge Christine O.C. Miller)

HOTELS.COM'S OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS, MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND, IF THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IS GRANTED, TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ________________ Hotels.com objects to the United States' Motion to Exceed Page Limits, established by this Court in its December 17, 2007 Order. The Government's decision to belatedly draft its brief, not giving itself sufficient time to edit the brief so as to comply with the Court's page limits, is simply not good cause. Moreover, the Government did not exceed the page limit by a small amount. Its brief is almost twice the page limit established by the Court. Further, a brief filed seven months after the close of evidence is not the time or place to set forth its litigating position and to raise new arguments. Accordingly, Hotels.com respectfully requests that the Government's Motion be denied.

1

Case 1:05-cv-00956-CCM

Document 139

Filed 01/22/2008

Page 2 of 2

Hotels.com also respectfully moves for an enlargement of time of seven days from the due date of the Government's revised brief, should the Court deny the Government's Motion and allow a revised brief to be filed, or, in the alternative, seven days from the Court's Order granting the Motion.1 As good cause therefore, Hotels.com asserts that its brief is due in three days (Thursday, January 24, 2008). Because of the Government's late-filed Motion, Hotels.com does not know whether the brief filed by the Government will be accepted by the Court and, as a result, does not know whether that brief is the brief to which it must reply. Accordingly, Hotels.com seeks the same time as originally allowed by the Court to reply to the Government's brief, as allowed by the Court. Should the Court grant the Government's Motion to exceed the page limits established by the Court, Hotels.com respectfully requests an additional three (3) pages for its Reply brief.

Dated: January 22, 2008

Respectfully submitted, s/ Kim Marie K. Boylan_____ Kim Marie K. Boylan Latham & Watkins, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-2235 Attorney of Record Kari M. Larson Latham & Watkins, LLP Of Counsel

1

Should the Court deny the Government's motion and not allow a revised brief to be filed, Hotels.com will reply to the brief filed by the Litmans and Dieners on or before January 24, 2008. Should the Court either deny the Government's Motion and allow a revised brief or grant the Government's Motion, Hotels.com will reply to the Litmans' and Dieners' brief at the same time as it replies to the Government's. 2