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

Case 1:05-cv-00708-CFL

Document 54

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SCOTT TIMBER CO., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 05-708C (Judge Lettow)

Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiff, Scott Timber's ("Scott") opposition to the Government's motion for an enlargement of time does not accurately describe the parties' communications concerning the motion. Defendant, United States seeks to clarify the facts and to restate the Government's request for a brief extension. When counsel for the Government initially wrote to request plaintiff's consent to the request for a brief extension of the motions schedule, it was clearly stated that the Government would agree that plaintiff's deadline for filing its motion in limine would also be extended if the plaintiff wished. Similarly, counsel for the Government informed plaintiff's counsel that the proposed deadline for replying to motions in limine and for plaintiff's reply to the Government's response to plaintiff's motion to admit deposition testimony was June 18, 2008. These details were not included in the Government's motion because plaintiff stated that it intended to oppose the motion. Additionally, the schedules described in American Ordnance v. United States, Case No. 07-867C (Fed. Cl.), and the companion bid protest, American Ordnance v. United States, Case No. 08-238C (Fed. Cl.), were put in place approximately one month after the scheduling order

Case 1:05-cv-00708-CFL

Document 54

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 4

was entered in this case. Additionally, at the request of the plaintiff in American Ordnance, 07867C, the schedule was expedited to provide that discovery would be concluded within six weeks. Government counsel did state at the scheduling conferences in both American Ordnance cases that the instant case was scheduled for a three-week trial beginning on June 30, 2008. The Government's request for a brief extension is not, as plaintiff's counsel infers, the product of Government counsel's failure to accommodate the pre-trial schedule in the instant case. Rather, the brief extension was requested to allow Government's counsel sufficient time to provide the Court with competent briefing. In short, plaintiff's opposition misstates the substance of the parties' communications regarding the Government's request for an extension, and grossly overstates any possible effect the short extension sought could possibly cause plaintiff. For these reasons, the Government requests that its motion for enlargement of time be granted.

Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

BRYANT G. SNEE Deputy Director

2

Case 1:05-cv-00708-CFL

Document 54

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 3 of 4

/s/ Joan M. Stentiford JOAN M. STENTIFORD Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 616-0341 Fax: (202) 514-8624

May 23, 2008

/s/ Ellen M. Lynch ELLEN M. LYNCH Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 353-7994 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

3

Case 1:05-cv-00708-CFL

Document 54

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May, 2008, a copy of "Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion For An 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

/s/ Joan M. Stentiford Joan M. Stentiford