Free Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 74

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ARTURO MORENO, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 05-142C Judge Firestone

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY Plaintiffs move the Court to extend the discovery deadline on the issue of liability in this matter to December 1, 2006. The Defendant has agreed not to oppose this motion. On April 3, 2006, the Court ordered the Defendant to send collective action notice to all class members. Defendant sent notice on May 19, 2006, and the period for joining the action closed on July 18, 2006. A total of 758 Plaintiffs have joined the action. On April 14, 2006, the Court ordered that discovery be bifurcated into the issues of liability and damages. It stayed discovery on damages and set a discovery deadline of September 1, 2006 on the issue of liability. At the conference, the Court recognized the difficulty of knowing how long discovery on liability would take and indicated that the deadline was flexible. Plaintiffs propounded document requests and interrogatories on the Defendant on May 15, 2006. At the Defendant's request, the Plaintiffs agreed to extend its time to respond to discovery to July 10, 2006. The Defendant moved this Court to extend its time to respond again to August 4, 2006. The Court granted the request. On August 4, the Defendant sent discovery responses to Plaintiffs' counsel. Since then, the parties have had extensive discussions on the extent of the discovery and the Defendant's obligations. At the Defendant's request, the Plaintiffs sent a 25-page letter 1

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 74

Filed 09/22/2006

Page 2 of 2

detailing what they perceive as deficiencies in the Defendant's discovery production. Plaintiffs are currently waiting for the Defendant's response to the letter. In addition to the issues regarding the Defendant's discovery production to date, the parties have not produced initial disclosures nor taken any depositions. Although the extension should have been requested prior to the September 1, 2006 discovery deadline, granting it now will not prejudice either party. Defendant has agreed not to oppose the motion, discovery is in process, and additional discovery is necessary to present the case fully to the Court. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court extend the discovery deadline to December 1, 2006.

Dated: New Paltz, New York September 22, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

/s Michael J.D. Sweeney 9 Paradies Lane New Paltz, New York 12561 (845) 255-9370 Counsel to Plaintiffs

2