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

Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 45

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SSA MARINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-490C (Chief Judge Damich)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION Defendant respectfully requests the Court to extend by 31 days, to and including September 24, 2007, the deadline for filing its response brief with regard to plaintiff's motion to exclude defendant's expert testimony. presently due on August 24, 2007. Defendant's brief is

This is defendant's first Plaintiff's counsel

request for an extension of this deadline.

has indicated that plaintiff does not oppose this motion. The time requested is necessary because the Court's summary judgment decision affects both the issue of whether and to what extent the Government will require the expert testimony that is the subject of plaintiff's motion for any further proceedings in this case, and whether and to what extent any further proceedings are necessary at all. In short, the summary judgment decision

appears to have resolved the primary dispute in this case and it may not be necessary to resolve the remaining issues in the case via trial (including the introduction of expert testimony). Defendant's counsel is initiating a dialogue with the plaintiff's counsel that defendant's counsel believes will clarify the

Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 45

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 2 of 4

parties' positions regarding the likelihood of settlement, the prospect of an alternative dispute resolution, the scope of the remaining disputed issues, the appropriate procedure for resolution of the remaining disputed issues if further proceedings are required, and plaintiff's intentions with regard to further review of the summary judgment decision. Each of

these positions could render plaintiff's motion to exclude moot, or, at least, suggest that other avenues of resolving the remaining disputed issues are more appropriate. If the parties are unable to reach agreement upon a joint proposal regarding the necessity for further proceedings and file it within the requested enlargement period, defendant's counsel will so advise the Court and file its response to the plaintiff's motion to exclude. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed motion for an enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Assistant Director s/ Brian S. Smith BRIAN S. SMITH -2-

Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 45

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 3 of 4

Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tele: (202) 616-0391 Fax: (202) 353-7988 Attorneys for Defendant OF COUNSEL: JOHN B. ALUMBAUGH PETER E. YOUNG U.S. Agency for International Development August 24, 2007

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 45

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 4 of 4

NOTICE OF FILING I hereby certify that on August 24, 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION" 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. the Court's system. Parties may access this filing through

s/ Brian S. Smith