Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 155

Filed 01/31/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________________________________________ INNOVAIR AVIATION LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DOCKET NO. 96-408C (Senior Judge Loren A. Smith)

PLAINTIFF INNOVAIR AVIATION LIMITED'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY THE POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE Plaintiff Innovair Aviation Limited ("Innovair") respectfully opposes the Government's request for a month-long extension to its post-trial briefing deadline. Innovair's case will not be submitted to this Court for its consideration and judgment until the completion of post-trial briefing and following oral argument, currently scheduled for April 1, 2008. As counsel for Innovair explained to the Government's counsel, Innovair's objection to the Government's request for a month-long extension stems from the resulting delay to the date for oral argument. The Government has been on notice of its February 4, 2008 deadline since the parties jointly proposed the post-trial briefing schedule to the Court at the telephonic status conference held on November 5, 2007, and has had seven weeks since Innovair filed its post-trial brief to prepare its response. While Innovair appreciates that counsel for the Government has obligations and deadlines in her other matters--a fact of professional life shared by Innovair's counsel--the briefing schedule in this matter was set down in early November 2007 at a time when Government's counsel was aware of her obligations in the two matters referenced in her

\\\DC - 085544/000001 - 2675557 v1

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 155

Filed 01/31/2008

Page 2 of 4

motion. In Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States, No. 2007-5169 (Fed. Cir.), the original briefing schedule was set sometime before the post-trial briefing schedule was set in this case. Indeed, according to the Federal Circuit docket in that appeal, the very same day Government's counsel agreed to her February 4 post-trial brief deadline in this case, she sought a month-long extension of her Rose Acre Farms briefing deadline, moving her deadline to January 16, 2008; a month later, Government's counsel filed a second request for extension in that appeal and received an extension to February 15, 2008. See D.E. Nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13, Rose Acre Farms, Inc., No. 2007-5169. Government's counsel also alluded to the need to take depositions prior to the close of discovery in another case, but fails to mention that on November 27, 2007, just a few weeks after agreeing to the February 4, 2008 deadline in Innovair and seeking an extension in the Rose Acre Farms appeal, Government's counsel moved for the second time to postpone the close of discovery in that case until February 29, 2008. See D.E. 53, 54, 61, 65, Ag-Innovations v. United States, No. 05-776C (Fed. Cl.). Plainly, the convergence of Government's counsel's obligations in these matters is a self-created predicament. Furthermore, while Government's counsel of record may be the only attorney with the requisite knowledge to assist with the Rose Acre Farms appeal, counsel offers no explanation of why her co-counsel Brian Edmunds is unavailable to assist with the preparation of Defendant's post-trial brief in this case. The Government took Innovair's valuable property seventeen years ago in 1991. It is now 2008, and every incremental delay in this case matters. The extended delay requested by the Government, one of many such requests it has made in this litigation,1 would further delay the resolution of this case and further delay the just compensation owed to Innovair and the honorable, yet no longer young, men who are the real parties in interest.

1

See, e.g., Docket Nos. 5, 7, 13, 38, 73, 75, 84, 91, 154. 2

\\\DC - 085544/000001 - 2675557 v1

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 155

Filed 01/31/2008

Page 3 of 4

If, however, the Court does decide to grant the Government an extension of time, Plaintiff recommends that the Court grant Defendant a three-week extension of its filing deadline to February 25, 2008; set a four-week period for Plaintiff's reply with a filing deadline of March 24, 2008; and schedule oral argument for as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. Plaintiff respectfully requests that argument occur no later than the week of April 7, 2008. This amendment to the schedule would provide Government's counsel with additional time to prepare its brief, yet still preserve Plaintiff's interest in submitting its case to this Court as expeditiously as possible. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the Defendant's motion to modify the post-trial briefing schedule. Respectfully submitted, s/Ty Cobb_________________________ Ty Cobb HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5681 (direct) (202) 637-5910 (facsimile) Attorney of Record for Plaintiff Innovair Aviation Limited Of Counsel: H. Christopher Bartolomucci Audrey E. Moog HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5810 (202) 637-5910 (facsimile) Dated: January 31, 2008 3
\\\DC - 085544/000001 - 2675557 v1

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 155

Filed 01/31/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 31st day of January, 2008, I filed the foregoing Plaintiff Innovair Aviation Limited's Opposition to Defendant's Request to Modify the PostTrial Briefing Schedule using the Court of Federal Claims' Electronic Court Filing system, which automatically caused notice to be sent to counsel of record for the parties. s/Ty Cobb_________________________ Ty Cobb Counsel for Innovair Aviation Limited

4
\\\DC - 085544/000001 - 2675557 v1