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

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 286

Filed 06/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS _________________________________________ ) KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) No. 01-591 L ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Judge Francis M. Allegra Defendant, ) ) PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF ) FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, ) ) Defendant-Intervenor. ) DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF Pursuant to RCFC 6(b) and 6.1, and pursuant to the Court's Special Procedures Order (filed Dec. 17, 2004), Defendant United States hereby moves for a three-week extension of the time, to and including June 26, 2006, to file its summary judgment reply brief. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows. 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' contract claims was

filed on February 17, 2006 (Doc. 261). 2. Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment was filed on

April 28, 2006 (Doc. 280). 3. Pursuant to RCFC 7.2(c), Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's opposition brief and in

support of its motion for summary judgment was originally due to be filed by May 15, 2006. Defendant moved for a three-week extension of time to file its reply brief, to and including, June 5, 2006 (Doc. 284). This motion was granted. The present motion is Defendant's second request 1

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 286

Filed 06/01/2006

Page 2 of 3

for an extension of time to file its summary judgment reply brief. 4. By this motion, Defendant seeks an additional three-week extension of time to file

its summary judgment reply brief, to and including June 26, 2006. This extension is requested in order for both the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior to complete their internal review of Defendant's reply brief. This review process is taking longer than anticipated by the undersigned counsel of record, due in part to the need to coordinate a number of pending cases involving Reclamation projects and contracts which raise many of the same issues that are presently being briefed in this case. In addition, an extension of three full weeks is requested instead of a shorter time because of several conflicting obligations of Defendant's counsel of record over the next several weeks, including the filing of a motion for summary judgment on June 9, 2006, in Hash v. United States (D. Idaho), and a hearing in Boise, Idaho, during the week of June 12, 2006, also in Hash. 5. Defendant has contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the extension requested in

this motion and has been informed that Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. // // // // // // //

2

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 286

Filed 06/01/2006

Page 3 of 3

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for a three-week extension of time to file its summary judgment reply brief, to and including June 26, 2006. Dated: June 1, 2006 Respectfully submitted, SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division s/Kristine S. Tardiff KRISTINE S. TARDIFF United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 230-2583 Fax: (603) 225-1577 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorney of Record for the Defendant

3