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

Case 1:02-cv-00466-LB

Document 74

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SUNOCO, INC. and PUERTO RICO SUN OIL COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02-466C (Chief Judge Damich)

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiffs, Sunoco, Inc. and Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company (collectively "Sunoco"), respectfully submit their Opposition to Defendant's Motion for an Enlargement of Time. Defendant seeks an enlargement of 21 days to reply to an opposition that it has had in essentially identical form since December 15, 2005, when it was first filed in the similarly situated military fuel case of El Paso Merchant Energy ­ Petroleum Company v. United States, No. 02-1094C (Fed. Cl.). When Defendant requested an enlargement here, Sunoco stated to Defendant that it "was willing to work with you on reasonable enlargements;" however, because Defendant had reply briefs due in five similarly situated military fuel cases, Sunoco further stated: "I think it is important that we maintain the relative order of the briefing schedules in the cases and that one or another of the cases is not put substantially out in front of or behind the others. Otherwise, it gives the appearance that the parties are attempting to manipulate the court." (E-mail from Keith Burt to Steven Gillingham of Feb. 1, 2006.)1 Accordingly, Sunoco proposed to agree to a twoweek extension for all of the replies, for total extensions of 10 weeks, and thereby maintain the
1

Thus, for example, in El Paso and Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United States, No. 02-1460C (Fed. Cl.), Defendant's reply is due on February 8, 2006, pursuant to a date Defendant selected and which at the time the Court cautioned Defendant against seeking to unilaterally enlarge.

Case 1:02-cv-00466-LB

Document 74

Filed 02/03/2006

Page 2 of 2

relative order of the cases. Id. Inexplicably, in Sunoco's view, Defendant declined this proposal, and now moves separately for an extension here. Sunoco respectfully submits that, with the 14-day extension Sunoco proposes, 60 days from when Defendant first received the substantially identical opposition in El Paso is more than ample time for Defendant to complete its reply here. Accordingly, Sunoco respectfully submits that Defendant's request for a 21-day enlargement is not reasonable and should be denied. Respectfully submitted,

s/J. Keith Burt J. Keith Burt Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3208 (phone) (202) 263-5208 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Sunoco., Inc. and Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company Of Counsel: Gary A. Winters Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 February 3, 2006

2