Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:02-cv-01460-LB

Document 69

Filed 02/09/2006

Page 1 of 1

United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 02-1460 C February 9, 2006 HERMES CONSOLIDATED, INC., d/b/a Wyoming Refining Company, Plaintiff, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SCHEDULING ORDER On December 21, 2005, a status teleconference was held to discuss plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limitation in its Response to defendant's Motion to Dismiss. During that status conference, parties agreed that plaintiff would file its Response no latter than January 11, 2006, and defendant's Reply would be filed no later than February 8, 2006. On February 7, 2006, defendant filed a Motion for an Enlargement of Time, requesting until March 1, 2006--an additional 21 days--to file its Reply. Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant's motion. In support of its Motion, defendant gives a litany of numerous cases and commitments that have arisen "within the last two weeks." Since it is within the last two weeks that defendant counsel's schedule has become unexpectedly busy, defendant is granted an additional two weeks to file its Reply. Defendant also indicated in its Motion that "it is likely we will seek to exceed the page limit" allowed for a Reply. The December 21, 2005 Scheduling Order, already granted defendant leave to exceed the 20-page limit allowed for a reply brief (see RCFC 5.2 (b)(2)) by an additional 20 pages. Additional page limit extensions will not be granted. The parties seem to have made a habit of requesting leave of the court at the last moment. First, plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limitations the day its Response was due. Now defendant comes the day before its Reply is due requesting an extension of time. In both instances, the party making the motion should have known well in advance it would be seeking the court's leave. Common courtesy would dictate that the parties in the future make requests of the court's leave as soon as it becomes apparent that an extension will be necessary and not wait until the last possible moment to do so. In consideration of all of the above, it is ORDERED that defendant's Reply may be filed no later than February 22, 2006, and the Reply shall not exceed 40 pages.

s/

Lawrence J. Block

Lawrence J. Block Judge