Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD

Document 123

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 05-231 T (Filed: September 25, 2007) ************************************* JZ BUCKINGHAM INVESTMENTS LLC, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ************************************* ORDER On July 23, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for penalties. Plaintiff filed its response to Defendant's motion on August 9, 2007. After being granted two extensions of time, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's response on September 17, 2007. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Plaintiff asserts that a sur-reply is warranted in the present circumstances "in light of the significant imbalance in the volume of the Parties' filings on this issue and in the time Defendant was granted in which to file its reply." Pl's. Mot at 2. Defendant's reply was twenty-one pages long and included an appendix of exhibits totaling approximately 495 pages. Defendant was granted extensions for twenty-five additional days within which to file the reply. Plaintiff's response was twenty-five pages long, included an appendix of exhibits totaling approximately 234 pages, and was timely filed without an extension of time. These "imbalances" notwithstanding, Plaintiff has not contended that Defendant's reply raised any new issues or made any new arguments which would necessitate a sur-reply. Nor has Plaintiff contended that its time to prepare the response was inadequate relative to the Defendant's extended time to prepare a reply. Thus, Plaintiff's request is based entirely on the comparative quantity of materials submitted to the Court and not on the content of such submissions. Since the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) do not provide for the filing of sur-replies, a sur-reply may only be filed by leave of the judge. Plaintiff has not demonstrated

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD

Document 123

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 2 of 2

any convincing reason to persuade the Court to grant such leave. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED.

s/ Edward J. Damich EDWARD J. DAMICH Chief Judge

2