Free Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00693-NBF

Document 50

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________________________________________ ) DOROTHY L. BIERY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:07-cv-693 ) (consolidated with: Case No. 07-675L) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Honorable Nancy B. Firestone Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ) JERRAMY PANKRATZ and ERIN ) PANKRATZ, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT Defendant, the United States of America, respectfully requests that the Court permit Defendant to exceed the page limit under the Rule 5.3(b)(2) of the Court of Federal Claims and allow Defendant to file its Reply in Support of Its Cross-motion for Summary Judgment with a page limit not to exceed 30 pages. As grounds for this motion, Defendant states that, prior to the consolidation of the Biery and Pankratz cases, Plaintiffs filed separate motions for partial summary judgment with supporting briefs that were each 40 pages in length. On May 9, 2008, the Court consolidated these two cases (Biery Doc. 29). On May 28, 2008, Defendant filed a motion for leave to exceed 1

Case 1:07-cv-00693-NBF

Document 50

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 2 of 3

the page limit from 50 to 60 pages for its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Plaintiffs' separately filed motions for partial summary judgment (Pankratz Doc. 41). The Court granted the motion on June 2, 2008 (Pankratz Doc. 42). On July 24, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to exceed the page limit from 30 pages to 60 pages for their response to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Biery Doc. 41). This motion was granted on July 25, 2008 (Biery Doc. 42). Plaintiffs filed (Biery Doc. 43) and later re-filed (Biery Doc. 47) their response to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, which was 60 pages in length. Under RCFC 5.3(b)(2), Defendant's reply brief is limited to 20 pages. In order for Defendant to adequately address all of the legal arguments raised in Plaintiffs' 60 page response brief, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court permit it to file a reply brief of up to 30 pages. Counsel for Defendant has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who advises they do not oppose this motion. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that it be allowed to exceed the page limit by 10 pages, and file a reply brief of up to 30 pages in length. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August, 2008. RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division s/ Kristine S. Tardiff by s/ Ayako Sato KRISTINE S. TARDIFF AYAKO SATO United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 2

Case 1:07-cv-00693-NBF

Document 50

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 3 of 3

53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor Concord, NH 03301 TEL: (603) 230-2583 FAX: (603) 225-1577 E-MAIL: [email protected]

3