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

Case 1:05-cv-00738-TCW

Document 28

Filed 10/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________ No. 05-738 T (Judge Wheeler) BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES & SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

Defendant, the United States, moves for a ten-day enlargement of time, from November 6 to November 16, 2006, to file its response to plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. This is the first enlargement requested for this purpose, and plaintiff's counsel has indicated that plaintiff does not oppose allowance of this motion. As good cause for allowance of this motion, the United States reports that it completed the discovery required to respond to plaintiff's motion within the time authorized by the Court and has made substantial progress in drafting an opposition to plaintiff's motion. However, at one of the two depositions taken on October 18, 2006, the deponent reserved the right to review and correct the transcripts of his deposition. The court reporter has advised that the transcripts will not be available until November 1, 2006. When solicited for consent to the requested extension, plaintiff's counsel suggested the allotment of one week for the deponent to review and sign the deposition transcript because the transcript will be arriving at a time when the

-1-

Case 1:05-cv-00738-TCW

Document 28

Filed 10/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

deponent's employer is in the process of relocating its corporate headquarters. Thus, to the extent the deponent make corrections, those corrections may not be transmitted to defendant until a date after the scheduled date for filing of the opposition to the motion to dismiss for the United States. This timing is important because the United States intends to rely substantially upon that deposition testimony in its opposition papers. Thus, if the United States files those papers on November 6, and the witnesses modify their testimony during the review process, complications could arise and supplemental briefs might be required. Conversely, if the United States defers filing until after the depositions are reviewed, those problems would disappear. Under the circumstances, the United States believes that deferral is the best course and seeks the requested enlargement to allow it to defer filing until the deposition review process is completed.

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00738-TCW

Document 28

Filed 10/27/2006

Page 3 of 3

Wherefore, the United States requests that the Court allow its motion for enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted,

s/ STUART J. BASSIN Attorney of Record U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division Court of Federal Claims Section Post Office Box 26 Ben Franklin Post Office Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-6418 (202) 307-2504 (fax) EILEEN J. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section JENNIFER D. SPRIGGS Senior Trial Attorney JACOB E. CHRISTIANSEN Trial Attorney October 26, 2006

-3-

1997313.1