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

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD

Document 114

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NO. 05-231 T (Chief Judge Damich) ____________________________ JZ Buckingham Investments LLC as Tax Matters Partner of JBJZ Partners, a South Carolina general partnership, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. ____________________________ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiff responds to the United States' Motion for Further Extension of Time filed September 5, 2007. Plaintiff is sympathetic to Mr. Steiner's situation, but feels compelled to respond to the request for additional time as follows: 1. Rule 7.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims allows a party seven (7)

days to file a reply. If the Defendant were to file its reply by the current deadline of September 7, it will have had 29 days to reply. An extension of another ten (10) days will give the Defendant thirty-nine (39) days to file a reply. 2. Plaintiff's response was filed within seventeen (17) days of the motion being filed

as required by the order from the clerk's office. 3. In the prior request for extension, Mr. Steiner noted that not only was he

unavailable, but also John Lindquist, who is also one of Defendant's counsel was not available because he would not be returning from vacation out of the country until August 28th. Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME ­ Page 1 356989

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD

Document 114

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 2 of 3

is aware that Mr. Lindquist has returned from his vacation and on Wednesday, August 29th, Mr. Lindquist was observing a deposition in a related case. At that deposition, which was also attended by Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Lindquist was reviewing Plaintiff's response and working on Defendant's reply. Given that Mr. Lindquist returned on August 28, he has had adequate time to prepare and file a reply within the generous time allotted by the Court. 4. Although neither Mr. Steiner nor Mr. Lindquist were previously available to file a

reply, there has been no indication in either the prior motion or the pending motion why Defendant's lead counsel, Dennis Donohue, has not been available to prepare and file the reply by the original deadline or by extended deadline. Given the importance of the issue (i.e. the potential assessment of penalties in excess of $4 million) and length of time requested by Defendant to file a reply, Plaintiff stated it would not oppose the granting of this motion, with the understanding that Defendant would not oppose Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Sur-Reply, if necessary. Defendant would not agree to this condition Respectfully submitted, By: s/Joel N. Crouch Joel N. Crouch Texas State Bar No.05144220 M. Todd Welty Texas State Bar No. 00788642

MEADOWS, OWENS, COLLIER, REED COUSINS & BLAU, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 744-3700 Telephone (214) 747-3732 Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME ­ Page 2 356989

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD

Document 114

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this the 6th day of September, 2007, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Further Extension of Time was delivered to counsel listed below via the electronic transmission. Dennis M. Donohue, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division P.O. Box 26 Ben Franklin Station Washington DC 20044 (202) 616-3366 s/Joel N. Crouch Joel N. Crouch

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME ­ Page 3 356989