Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 245

Filed 06/18/2004

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
____________________________________ ) PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________)

No. 98-720 C

Filed June 18, 2004

ORDER On June 17, 2004, the Court held a telephonic scheduling conference in order to discuss the course of further proceedings in this case. After discussion with the parties, the Court ORDERS that defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment shall be filed, and served by hand, by Friday, July 23, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. The Court considers July 23, 2004 to be a firm deadline, and absent a showing of truly compelling circumstances, the Court will not entertain any requests from defendant for an enlargement of time. Defendant orally moved to exceed the page limitation with respect to its reply brief. The Court ORDERS that defendant's motion to exceed the page limitation is GRANTED. Defendant shall be entitled to file a reply brief that is 50 pages long. Should defendant require additional pages, it must file an additional motion to exceed the page limitation. The Court further ORDERS that defendant may file in paper form its reply brief, its response to plaintiff's proposed additional facts, and any appendix or other papers associated with its reply brief, should it so choose. The Court ORDERS that the parties shall appear for oral argument on defendant's motion for summary judgment on Friday, August 13, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. at the National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. The August 13 proceedings will be in open court and on the record.

-1-

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 245

Filed 06/18/2004

Page 2 of 2

Based on the discussion with the parties, trial is tentatively scheduled to begin on January 18, 2005. The length of the trial has not yet been determined, and will depend in part on the Court's decision regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment. The parties anticipate that, for the convenience of the witnesses, portions of the trial may need to be held in Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ George W. Miller GEORGE W. MILLER Judge

-2-