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

Case 1:01-cv-00639-CFL

Document 180

Filed 08/22/2007

Page 1 of 3

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

No. 01-639C (Judge Lettow)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to RCFC 6(b), defendant requests an enlargement of time of five days, to and including August 27, 2007, within which to file its forthcoming motion for summary judgment. Our motion for summary judgment is now due on August 22, 2007. This is our second request for an enlargement of time for this purpose; the Court granted our previous request for five days. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he will not oppose this request for an enlargement of time. On behalf of the plaintiff, we also request an enlargement of five days, to and including October 1, 2007, to file its response. We also request that our reply, currently due on October 5, 2007, be due on October 9, 2007. This adjustment still leaves the Court eight days to review the parties' submissions before oral argument on October 17, 2007. Since our last motion to enlarge, agency counsel has returned to the office and has addressed the issues that required his attention. Counsel for the defendant, however, was assigned to the bid protest HWA, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl. 07-615, on Friday afternoon and has had a substantial portion of his time occupied with the initial preparation of that case. In addition, a disagreement over the scheduling of certain discovery in another of defendant's counsel's cases, Stovall v. United States, Fed. Cl. 05-400, blossomed into a full motion to compel between Monday and today. Because of these other unforseen matters, and despite his best efforts, counsel for the defendant was unable to complete the defendant's motion so that it could be internally reviewed pursuant to Department of Justice policy in time for filing by August 22, 2007. The initial scheduling conference in the HWA case was held on Tuesday, August 21,

Case 1:01-cv-00639-CFL

Document 180

Filed 08/22/2007

Page 2 of 3

2007, and the plaintiff in the Stovall case filed his motion to compel this morning. Thus, defense counsel should have a short reprieve from these matters, which have been diverting his attention away from this case. Accordingly, we anticipate that extending the filing deadline by five days will allow adequate time to complete and file our motion. Again, we apologize to the Court and to the plaintiff for any inconvenience this motion presents. For the foregoing reasons, defendant requests that the Court grant this motion for an enlargement of time.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director /s/ Deborah A. Bynum DEBORAH A. BYNUM Assistant Director /s/ Devin A. Wolak DEVIN A. WOLAK Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L St., N.W. Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel. (202) 616-0170 Fax. (202) 514-8624 August 22, 2007 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:01-cv-00639-CFL

Document 180

Filed 08/22/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on August 22, 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED 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/ Devin A. Wolak DEVIN A. WOLAK