Free Motion to Amend Schedule - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00194-RHH

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CITY OF TACOMA, Department of Public Utilities. Light Division, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 05-194C (Judge Hodges)

JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY AND TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully and jointly request an enlargement of time of 78 days, to and including February 16, 2007, within which to complete discovery in this case. Discovery is currently scheduled to be completed on or before November 30, 2006. This is the parties' second request for enlargement of the discovery period. The Court previously granted the parties' request to extend the discovery period by 120 days. The parties have exchanged their documents and identified potential deponents, and plaintiff has issued its first set of interrogatories and requests for admissions and scheduled the depositions of three of the Government's witnesses for late July 2006. However, the substantial portion of the parties' time since March 2006 has been devoted to the settlement of this case. The parties have made significant progress. They have identified numerous areas of agreement and, to that end, have exchanged six drafts of a protocol statement which is designed to avoid future disputes of the sort that developed in this case. Both parties are hopeful that they can resolve this matter through compromise, so they anticipate that they will require significant additional time to continue with their negotiations until this matter, in fact, is resolved or until they have exhausted all possible avenues for resolution.

Case 1:05-cv-00194-RHH

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 2 of 4

Both Parties desire to avoid the expense of potentially needless discovery. Nevertheless, given the amount of time it has taken them to reach this point in their negotiations, they have decided to commence some discovery in the event that they cannot resolve this matter through settlement. In any event, should settlement discussions fail, the parties will require until the middle of October 2006 to complete fact discovery and until the middle of February 2007 to complete expert discovery. Given the number of potential witnesses and the significant number of documents the parties have already exchanged, they have agreed that an extension of time to October 20, 2006, for written discovery and depositions of fact witnesses is appropriate and necessary in this case. The parties, in turn, further agree that an extension of time for exchange of expert reports is appropriate. Specifically, the parties request that the Court issue a modified Scheduling Order establishing October 20, 2006, as the date for submittal of Plaintiff's expert report and December 22, 2006, as the date for submittal of defendant's expert report.1 Finally, the parties agree and mutually request the Court to modify the Scheduling Order to establish February 16, 2007, as the date deposition of experts will be completed, and March 2, 2007, as the date the Parties will file a joint status report. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant this joint motion for enlargement of time and that it issue a revised Scheduling Order consistent with the parties' request.

Given that the defendant does not know who plaintiff will identify as its expert witness and what plaintiff's expert's opinions will be, defendant will require at least one month after receiving plaintiff's expert report to identify and hire its expert witness. Then, the government's expert will require one month to complete his expert report. -2-

1

Case 1:05-cv-00194-RHH

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

/s/ David M. Cohen by Jeanne E. Davidson DAVID M. COHEN Director /s/ Ward D. Groves by Anne L. Spangler WARD D. GROVES Assistant City Attorney Department of Public Utilities P.O. Box 11007 Tacoma, W A 98411 Tele: (253) 502-8217 Facsimile: (253) 502-8672 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Sheryl L. Floyd SHERYL L. FLOYD Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-0282 Facsimile: (202) 514-8624 OF COUNSEL: BRYAN O'BOYLE Department of the Air Force 1501 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209-2403 Attorneys for Defendant

DATE:

7/3/06

DATE:

6/30/06

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00194-RHH

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 5th day of JULY, 2006, a copy of this "JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY AND TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER" was filed e1ectronicaly. 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/ Sheryl L. Floyd