Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 93

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS GASA, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 01-642 (Judge Sweeney)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 14 days to and including June 1, 2007, within which to file its summary judgment reply brief. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated no opposition to this motion. Our reply brief is currently due on May 18, 2007. This is our

second request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. In our previous motion for enlargement of time, we indicated the following obligations that would impede the timely completion of our reply brief, and that suggested that May 18, 2007, was a feasible due date for our reply brief: Reply brief in Daewoo v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 02-1914C (March 7, 2007); bid protest and TRO hearing in Geo-Seis v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 07155C (March 8-16, 2007); out of town trial in Metric v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-954C (March 19-23, 2007); trial in Caddell v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-461C (April 16-20, April 30-May 4, 2007); and oral argument in Marshall v. Interior, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-1498 (May 10, 2007).

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 93

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 2 of 4

Unfortunately, those obligations were more time consuming that anticipated (particularly the Caddell trial) and, in addition, other obligations were interposed ­ most notably an entire briefing schedule for injunctive relief in Geo-Seis v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 07-155C (defendant's briefs due May 4 and May 24, 2007); fraud investigation cost submission in Daewoo v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 02-1914C (May 18, 2007); out of town summary judgment argument in PCL v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-144C (May 21-22, 2007); respondent's brief in Jackson v. DVA, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-7061 (May 16, 2007); and respondent's brief in Belton v. DVA, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-7136 (May 25, 2007). The enlargement is necessary to facilitate the completion of our summary judgment reply brief, provide adequate time for supervisory approval, and to ensure that it is thorough and of the most benefit to the Court. The enlargement period that is

requested is also designed to account for defendant's counsel's intervening obligations, described above. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this motion for an enlargement of 14 days be granted. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

2

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 93

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 3 of 4

s/Donald E. Kinner DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director s/Brian S. Smith BRIAN S. SMITH Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attention: Classification Unit 1100 L St. NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-0391 Attorneys for Defendant May 17, 2007

3

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 93

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on May 17, 2007, a copy of foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will

be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. s/Brian S. Smith

4