Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00541-SGB

Document 6

Filed 07/08/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS COLUMBIA MANUFACTURING, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 05-541C (Judge Braden)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 30 days, to and including August 10, 2005, to respond to the complaint filed by plaintiff, Columbia Manufacturing, Inc. ("Columbia"). Defendant's responsive pleading currently is due July 11, 2005. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Undersigned counsel has contacted counsel for plaintiff, but has yet to receive a response as to whether plaintiff opposes this request.1 This motion is necessary because of unanticipated difficulties experienced by defendant in completing its responsive pleading. Responding to the allegations

Counsel for plaintiff, however, has indicated a willingness to stay this case pending the proceedings in Columbia Mfg. v. United States, No. 02-1221 ("Columbia I"), also before this Court. The requested enlargement will provide the parties an opportunity to resolve this issue.
1

Case 1:05-cv-00541-SGB

Document 6

Filed 07/08/2005

Page 2 of 4

contained in plaintiff's complaint will require significant factual inquiry and review, including possible communications with retired Air Force personnel. Defendant has not had sufficient time to complete the necessary factual inquiries and incorporate the results of those inquiries into its responsive pleading. Moreover, defendant has been occupied with numerous discovery items related to Columbia I. These discovery items have required virtually all of defendant's available time and resources, and have not permitted defendant sufficient time to complete the tasks necessary to respond to the complaint. In addition, the parties have scheduled a deposition of the contracting officer in Columbia I for July 19-21, 2005. This also will prevent defendant from having sufficient time to prepare its responsive pleading. Further, counsel for defendant has been occupied with the following activities in other matters: (1) class action certification discovery in Filosa, et al. v. United States, No. 04-710 (Fed. Cl.); (2) document production, discovery responses and ADR proceedings in SPW Engineering Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-794 (Fed. Cl.); and (3) preparation and filing of a response brief, due July 8, 2005, in MBTA v. United States, No. 05-5017 (Fed. Cir.). These activities also have prevented defendant from having sufficient time to complete its responsive pleading in this case. -2-

Case 1:05-cv-00541-SGB

Document 6

Filed 07/08/2005

Page 3 of 4

Accordingly, defendant respectfully requests the Court to grant this unopposed motion to enlarge the deadline for its responsive pleading by 30 days, to and including August 10, 2005. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director /s/Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Assistant Director /s/Gregory T. Jaeger GREGORY T. JAEGER Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 353-7955 Fax: (202) 353-7988 Attorneys for Defendant

OF COUNSEL: BRYAN O'BOYLE Sr. Trial Attorney Air Force Legal Services Agency Commercial Litigation Division Arlington, VA

July 8, 2005

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00541-SGB

Document 6

Filed 07/08/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on July 8, 2005, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 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/Gregory T. Jaeger