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

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 91

Filed 04/05/2007

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 OUT OF TIME MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 60 days to and including May 18, 2007, within which to file its summary judgment reply brief. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated no opposition to this motion. Our reply brief was due on March 19, 2007.1 This is our first

request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Our motion for summary judgment was filed on September 20, 2006, and the plaintiff required more than five months, and the taking of several depositions of Government witnesses, to respond. In its response, the plaintiff incorporated references

and arguments related to the new deposition testimony that did not exist when our motion for summary judgment was filed. Although the new deposition testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact that prevents the Court from granting our

When scheduling our response time, and the date by which a motion for enlargement should have been filed, we mistakenly used the time parameters applicable to a cross-motion for summary judgment instead of an opposition to our motion for summary judgment.

1

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 91

Filed 04/05/2007

Page 2 of 4

motion for summary judgment, we wish to fully respond to the plaintiff's new arguments in our reply brief. Unfortunately, since the filing of plaintiff's opposition (and during the requested enlargement period), defendant's counsel of record has been occupied with obligations that have prevented us from more promptly preparing our reply brief. Those

obligations include 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. 07-155C (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 (April 10, 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 60 days be granted.

2

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 91

Filed 04/05/2007

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director 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 April 5, 2007

3

Case 1:01-cv-00642-MMS

Document 91

Filed 04/05/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on April 5, 2007, a copy of foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED OUT OF TIME 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