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

Case 1:04-cv-00856-GWM

Document 147

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WALTER JAYNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 04-856C (Judge George W. Miller)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' FOUR MOTIONS/CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this Court's scheduling orders, dated April 3, 2007 and May 31, 2007, the Court set up a briefing schedule for the parties to file a motion for summary judgment regarding: (1) the effect of the 1994 amendments to the Civil Service Reform Act; (2) the applicable limitations period(s); and (3) the effect of the Grievance Decision on the Court's role and tasks; and (4) the effect of an absence of records on the determination of the amount of high work performed. These orders required the Government to file its response and reply to plaintiffs' cross-motion on or before Thursday, October 4, 2007. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enlarge the deadline by 60 calendar days, up to and including December 3, 2007. This is the defendant's first request for an enlargement of this deadline. Counsel for the Government has conferred with plaintiffs' counsel, and they have indicated that they object to this enlargement. The additional time is required for Government counsel to adequately prepare and file the Government's responses and replies in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs's four motions/cross-motions. While the Court's schedule had contemplated that parties would file a motion for summary judgment and cross-motion, plaintiffs

Case 1:04-cv-00856-GWM

Document 147

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 2 of 4

instead choose to file four separate motions/cross-motions, without prior notice to the Court or Government and without requesting leave of Court to do so. While the Government prepared its initial motion in careful consideration of the page limits set forth in this Court's rules, the combined length of plaintiffs' motions is nearly double that which is allotted by this Court's rules to a response and cross-motion. Rather than move to strike, however, the Government has determined that it would be in the interests of judicial efficiency to respond to all four motion/cross motions. Nevertheless, as a result of plaintiffs' chosen approach to their motion and cross-motion, the original schedule contemplated by the parties for filing is no longer viable for the Government. Further, counsel for the Government has several other matter effecting his schedule, including an expedited appeal of this Court's recent decision in a bid protest involving a $200 million to $400 million procurement for security services in Iraq, Erinys Iraq v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-5170 (notice of appeal filed September 11, 2007, contract scheduled to begin starting November 15, 2007), and a related protest with the Government Accountability Office which we anticipate will be dismissed and re-filed with this Court, ArmorGroup North America, GAO No. B-299524.5 (filed September 21, 2007); and preparing for oral argument in a recently transferred appeal at the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, Karl Dietrich v. Department of the Navy, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-3011 (oral argument scheduled for October 3, 2007). For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that its motion for an enlargement of time be granted, and that the Court order that defendant's response and reply to the various crossmotions and motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs be due on or before December 2

Case 1:04-cv-00856-GWM

Document 147

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 3 of 4

3, 2007. Further, in order to assure that plaintiffs have adequate time to respond, defendant respectfully requests that the other deadlines on the briefing schedule be moved forward 60 days. Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

/s/ Mark A Melnick MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: TELIN W. OZIER Trial Counsel Department of the Navy 720 Kennon Street, S.E. WNY Bldg. 36, Room 256 Washington, D.C. 20374-5013 STEVEN L. SEATON Labor Counsel Department of the Navy Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 1400 Farragut Avenue Bremerton, Washington 98314-5001

/s/ Steven M. Mager STEVEN MAGER Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit, 8th floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-2377 Fax: (202) 305-7644 [email protected]

September 27, 2007

Attorneys for Defendant

3

Case 1:04-cv-00856-GWM

Document 147

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 27th day of September 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' FOUR MOTIONS/CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

/s/ Steven M. Mager Steven M. Mager Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice