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

Case 1:02-cv-01500-GWM

Document 69

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 02-1500C (Judge George W. Miller)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that the Court grant our motion for an unopposed enlargement of time of 14 days, to and including September 11, 2006, to file our response to the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. ("Jacobs"). Our brief is due on August 28, 2006. This is our second

request for an enlargement of time for this purpose, the Court having granted an enlargement of time of 14 days. Counsel for Jacobs has authorized us to state that Jacobs does not oppose this motion for an enlargement of time. Because of the press of other business, counsel has been able to devote little time to this matter, and counsel does not expect to have sufficient time to complete necessary work by August 28, 2006. Since we filed our first motion for an enlargement of time on July 27, 2006, counsel has completed a draft formal brief in Harper v. DVA, 2006-7167 (Fed. Cir.), finalized a

Case 1:02-cv-01500-GWM

Document 69

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

memorandum for the Solicitor General in connection with a recent decision, Gose v. United States Postal Service, 451 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2006), defended a deposition in HM2 Corporation v. United States, No. 05-551C (Fed. Cl.), filed an informal brief in DeMaggio v. USPS, 2006-3247 (Fed. Cir.), filed a response to a recaption motion in the DeMaggio case, and filed an informal brief in Wilson v. DHS, 2006-3276 (Fed. Cir.). Counsel also took several hours of In addition, counsel was

leave to care for his son.

required to attend to many, smaller tasks. The full enlargement of time is needed. Counsel will

be on long-planned annual leave away from Washington, D.C. from August 18, 2006 through August 22, 2006. On August 23,

2006, counsel must prepare for and participate in a status conference in Arco Management Corp. v. United States, No. 04-1782C. On August 31, 2006, counsel must file an informal September 4,

brief in Meyer v. OPM, 2006-3300 (Fed. Cir.). 2006 is a holiday.

On September 6, 2006, counsel is due to

file a response to the complaint in Shirley M. Priest v. United States, No. 06-346C (Fed. Cl.). As soon as possible,

counsel is due to write a settlement memorandum for J.H. Parker Construction Company, Inc. v. United States, No. 04471C (Fed. Cl.). -2-

Case 1:02-cv-01500-GWM

Document 69

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

In addition, time is needed for preparation of the response to the motion for summary judgment, and for review of the final draft brief by counsel for the agency and supervisors at the Department of Justice. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General S/ David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director S/ James W. Poirier JAMES W. POIRIER Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L St, N.W Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: 202-307-6289 Fax: 202-514-7969 August 17, 2006 Attorneys for Defendant

-3-

Case 1:02-cv-01500-GWM

Document 69

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on August 17, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME" 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. this filing through the Court's system. S/ James W. Poirier Parties may access