Free Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 235

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 98-720C (Judge George W. Miller)

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT AND FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, Rules 5.2 and 7.1, Plaintiff Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. ("Precision Pine"), for the reasons set forth below, hereby moves the Court to allow Precision Pine to exceed the page limit and grant an enlargement of time within which to file its Response To Defendant's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. This is Precision Pine's first motion for this purpose. Counsel for Precision Pine has discussed this motion with counsel for defendant who advises that defendant will oppose this motion.

Additional Pages Defendant's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, which exceeded the allowable page limit by seven pages, seeks judgment as a matter of law on almost every element of Precision Pine's damages.1 These damages were sustained by Precision Pine when 12 of its timber sale contracts were suspended for a prolonged period of time resulting in a breach of those contracts

Defendant's Motion seeks to dispose of more than 97% of the dollar value of the damages claimed by Precision Pine as a matter of law. 1

1

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 235

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 2 of 3

and severe financial repercussions for Precision Pine. Defendant's Statement of the Issues in its brief identifies 13 issues and sub-issues about which it claims there are no genuine issues of material fact. However, a review of the text of the government's brief discloses in excess of 20 discrete arguments being raised, sometimes in little more than a footnote that will, nonetheless, require a response from Precision Pine, including the presentation of factual support. Even conservatively estimating that there are only 20 issues raised in defendant's brief and further assuming an average of just four pages to respond to each, Precision Pine's Response Brief would consist of 80 pages of argument, which would not include any pages for an introduction, statement of the case, statement of the issues, and conclusion as provided for by RCFC 5.2. In this regard, Precision Pine's draft brief is currently well in excess of 50 pages of argument with some major portions of the brief still to be completed. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, Precision Pine seeks leave to file a response brief not to exceed 100 pages. As the Court found to be the case in granting defendant's motion to exceed the page limitation, the interests of justice will be best served by allowing Precision Pine to fully set forth the factual and legal grounds in its Response Brief. Of course, Precision Pine will however make every effort to file a Response Brief that is as concise as possible.

Additional Time Precision Pine's Response Brief is currently due on Thursday, May 13, 2004 and Precision Pine seeks an enlargement of 22 days, to and including Friday, June 4, 2004 within which to file its Response Brief. This additional time is requested so that Precision Pine may fully respond to the myriad of issues raised by defendant and to compile the necessary factual support for its Response Brief, including the preparation of necessary declarations. Moreover, 2

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 235

Filed 05/03/2004

Page 3 of 3

the intervening period includes the Memorial Day holiday weekend (May 29-31) as well as a total of 15 days when one or both of the main counsel for Precision Pine have previous commitments requiring them to be out-of-town on other matters.

In light of the foregoing, Precision Pine respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file a Response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that does not exceed 100 pages on or before June 4, 2004.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Alan I. Saltman SALTMAN & STEVENS, P.C. 1801 K Street, N.W. Suite M-110 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2140 (202) 775-8217 ­ facsimile Counsel for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL: Richard W. Goeken David J. Craig SALTMAN & STEVENS, P.C. 1801 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2140 (202) 775-8217 ­ facsimile Dated: May 3, 2004

3