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

Case 1:02-cv-00465-ECH

Document 78

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS LA GLORIA OIL AND GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02-465C (Judge Hewitt)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to RCFC 6(b), defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of time of four days from May 22, 2006, to and including May 26, 2006, within which to file our response to plaintiff's opposition to our motion to dismiss; and requests an enlargement of time of eight days, from May 18, 2006, to and including May 26, 2006, out of time, to file our response to plaintiff's RCFC 56(f) motion.1 This is our first enlargement request for this purpose. Plaintiff's counsel has informed us that plaintiffs do not oppose this request. Since receiving plaintiff's motion, we have discussed the matter with the affected agency and obtained their preliminary comments. However, since last week, the attention of the agency and defendant's counsel have been diverted by last week's unexpected death and this week's funeral of Lawrence Ervin. Mr. Ervin was a witness and affected agency official in Tesoro v. United States, No. 02-704C, and others, in the series of cases known as the Defense Department

We have linked these two documents, because they were filed together and were subject to the same response time (17 days). However, because La Gloria's response brief was accompanied by a motion to exceed the page limit (unopposed), it was refiled two days later, which generated a later due date, May 22. In many of the other cases in this jet fuel litigation, in which the parties have filed similar briefs, the merits and RCFC 56(f) briefs and responses have been filed together. Thus, defendant's counsel calendared both briefs together (for May 18) and when he learned the reply date had been moved to May 22 for the reply brief, he inadvertently moved the deadline for the RCFC 56(f) brief to that date. Defendant's counsel apologizes to the Court and plaintiff for this oversight.

1

Case 1:02-cv-00465-ECH

Document 78

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 2 of 4

jet fuel litigation. We were scheduled to file our Tesoro brief, which included testimony from Mr. Ervin, last week. Shortly after learning of his death, we requested and received an unopposed enlargement of time of three days in that case, in order to determine, among other things, how to amend our briefs, and develop the necessary evidence, in consort with Mr. Ervin's colleagues. We are seeking an unopposed three-day enlargement in order to respond to plaintiff's RCFC 56(f) motion in Gary-Williams v. United States, No. 03-2106C (due May 22), which involves the same agency; and also will request a four day enlargement in another jet fuel case, La Gloria v. United States, No. 02-465C (also due May 22). During that same time, defendant's counsel had to devote his attention to other matters pending before this Court, including: preparing our brief in Clark v. United States, No. 03-2106C (Fed. Cl.) (seven day enlargement request pending); and performing several unanticipated supervisory duties, including attending several management and other meetings, including oral arguments at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a supervisory capacity, and attending Mr. Ervin's funeral. We seek to enlarge these deadlines until May 26, because, among other things, during that same time, defendant's counsel must prepare for a moot court and oral argument (scheduled for May 25), in Sunoco v. United States, No. 02-466C, El Paso v. United States, No. 02-1094C, and Hermes v. United States, No. 02-1460C (arguments consolidated), the first oral argument in the Defense Department's jet fuel contract litigation (these cases involve twelve principle issues and several of the cases in that litigation have been stayed and are likely to be affected by the outcome of that argument; accordingly, they will require a great deal of counsel's attention); prepare our brief in Gary-Williams v. United States, No. 03-2106C, and complete our brief in

-2-

Case 1:02-cv-00465-ECH

Document 78

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 3 of 4

Clark v. United States, No. 03-2106C. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of time of four days from May 22, 2006, to and including May 26, 2006, within which to file our response to plaintiff's opposition to our motion to dismiss; and eight days, from May 18, 2006, to and including May 26, 2006, to file our response to plaintiff's RCFC 56(f) motion. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

s/ David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director

OF COUNSEL: DONALD S. TRACY Trial Attorney Defense Supply Center Richmond Richmond, VA 23297

HOWARD M. KAUFER Assistant Counsel Office of Counsel Defense Energy Support Center Ft. Belvoir, VA

s/ Steven J. Gillingham STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-2311 Fax: (202) 353-7988

Attorneys for Defendant May 19, 2006

-3-

Case 1:02-cv-00465-ECH

Document 78

Filed 05/19/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on May 19, 2006, a copy of the foregoing document 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/ Steven J. Gillingham