Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00868-FMA

Document 88

Filed 02/09/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS L.P. CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 98-868C (Judge Allegra)

CONSENT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

Plaintiff L.P. Consulting Group, Inc. ("L.P."), with the consent of the Government, hereby moves the Court for a brief, one week, enlargement of time within which to file Plaintiff's Opposition to the Government's currently pending Motion for Summary Judgment and for the Government to File its Reply thereto. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states: 1. 1998. 2. Since that time, a number of extensions and stays have been granted by the court, This case has a long, complex history since its initial inception in the court in

virtually all of which were made at the Government's request. 3. Until this point in time, Plaintiff has fully complied with the Court's prior

scheduling orders and has not requested time extensions nor continuances. 4. Plaintiff's counsel is cognizant of the Court's admonition in granting the

Government's most recent Motion for Enlargement of Time that in granting that Motion counsel for the parties should adjust their schedules accordingly. Unfortunately, due to circumstances

78382/F/1

Case 1:98-cv-00868-FMA

Document 88

Filed 02/09/2005

Page 2 of 5

and deadlines beyond undersigned counsel's and co-counsels' control, this admonition came at a time when a significant number of intervening events also occurred. 5. Due to a number of unforeseeable events and statutory deadlines, Plaintiff's

counsel and co-counsel now has the need to request this short time extension. Those events include the following: a. Counsel have been involved in a series of new and on-going separate

protests at the Government Accountability Office within the last month including: i. Professional Landscape Management Services, Inc., B-_____ (case

number pending) : filed protest on Friday, February 4, 2005; ii. Segovia, Inc., B-294972 et seq.: Represented Intervenor - Receipt

of second supplemental protest and preparation of response thereto. Case recently settled, effective February 1, 2005. iii. Yang Enterprises, Inc., GAO Protest B-294605.4 ­ Co-counsel in

this case received a sizable Agency Report on January 25, 2005, which required review and filing of additional bases of protest and agency report comments on or before February 9, 2005. The Agency Report consisted of a twenty page brief and fifteen page contracting officer's statement, as well as fifteen binders of record materials. In fact, just today, the GAO informed counsel that on February 11, 2005, the agency is filing a supplemental agency report in response to new protest grounds raised. As the Court is no doubt aware, the deadlines for filing supplemental bases of protest and the like are statutorily set by the Competition In Contracting

72382/F/1 26L_01_.DOC

2

Case 1:98-cv-00868-FMA

Document 88

Filed 02/09/2005

Page 3 of 5

Act and by regulation (see generally, 4 C.F.R. Title 21), and are not adjustable by GAO. d. Prepared and filed a Complaint, Motion for Temporary Injunction with

affidavits against the EEOC in the case styled as AARP et al. v. Equal employment Opportunity Commission, Case No. 05-CV-509, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which filing occurred on Friday, February 4, 2005. Counsel was also required to appear at the oral argument in connection with the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which also took place on February 4, 2005, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Simply stated, as a result of these urgent and inflexible deadlines, despite

Plaintiff's best efforts to meet the Court's latest ordered deadline, Plaintiff is forced to request this brief time extension, with the Government's consent. 7. This brief one week extension to both parties' currently scheduled deadlines will

prejudice neither the court nor the parties. 8. The parties believes that this one week extension will permit them to provide the

court with a full and proper response to the current motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, L.P. Consulting, Inc., with the consent of the Defendant, United States of America, hereby requests that the Court grant this Motion for Enlargement of Time and extend Plaintiff's time in which to file its Opposition to the currently pending Motion for Summary Judgment by one week, up to and including Friday, February 18, 2005; and that the Court extend the Government's time in which to file its reply to such Opposition until and including Friday, March 11, 2005.

72382/F/1 26L_01_.DOC

3

Case 1:98-cv-00868-FMA

Document 88

Filed 02/09/2005

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

BELL, BOYD & LLOYD, PLLC

By __/s/ Brian Cohen__________________ Brian Cohen 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-6300 (202) 463-0678 Facsimile Attorney for Plaintiff Of Counsel: Michael J. Schrier, Esq. Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq. Bell, Boyd, & Lloyd PLLC 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036

`

72382/F/1 26L_01_.DOC

4

Case 1:98-cv-00868-FMA

Document 88

Filed 02/09/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that on this 9th day of February, 2005, a copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system.

/s/ Brian Cohen

_

72382/F/1 26L_01_.DOC

5