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

Case 1:05-cv-00381-CFL

Document 25

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNTED STATES COURT OF FEDERA CLAIS

ARSAS GAME & FISH
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
v.

UNTED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-381 L
Judge Charles F. Lettow

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF FACT DISCOVERY
Defendant, UNTED STATES OF AMERICA, respectfully

moves for an enlargement of

time for fact discovery. On April 24, 2006, the paries jointly moved for an extension of fact
discovery. The Cour granted that joint motion on April

26, 2006, and ordered the deadline for

fact discovery to be extended from May i, 2006 to September i, 2006. On July 31, 2006, the
paries again jointly moved for an extension of

fact discovery. The Cour granted the joint

motion on August 2, 2006, and ordered the deadline for fact discovery to be extended until
October 2, 2006.

Due to certain developments in the case, which are listed below, Defendant respectfully
moves for a 32-day enlargement for fact discovery.
1.

Defendant noticed several depositions for the week of September 25, 2006, in

Little Rock, Arkansas. Due to scheduling conflicts, Plaintiff is unable to defend
all of these depositions durng the noticed times. Therefore, Plaintiff

requested

i
-

Case 1:05-cv-00381-CFL

Document 25

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

that some of the depositions be rescheduled for a later time. The only time

agreeable to both paries is durng the week of October 30, 2006, in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Plaintiff

has informed Defendant that it does not object to the

enlargement of fact discovery for the purose of takng these previously noticed

depositions.
2.

Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum for a fact witness, who is a former
employee of

Plaintiff, for a deposition on October 2,2006. Due to scheduling

conflicts, Plaintiff is unable to defend the deposition on that date. Although
Defendant conferred with Plaintiff about moving the October 2, 2006 deposition
to a later date, Plaintiff

has not definitively indicated its position on rescheduling.

this deposition. Thus, due to the impending fact discovery deadline, Defendant
seeks the Cour's approval to enlarge fact discovery.
3.

Other than those persons whose depositions have already been noticed or who

have been subpoenaed for a deposition, Defendant may wish to depose additional

persons who have yet to be noticed, durng the week of October 30, 2006, in Little
Rock, Arkansas. Plaintiff

has informed Defendant that it would like to limit the

extension of fact discovery to only those depositions that have already been
noticed. Defendant moves the Cour to allow for unlimited fact discovery until

November 2, 2006, as new information may come to light durng the impending
depositions.

2
-

Case 1:05-cv-00381-CFL

Document 25

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, Defendant moves the Cour to extend fact discovery by 32 days or up to and
including November 3, 2006.

Dated: September 27, 2006

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIGE
Assistant Attorney General

United States Deparent of Justice
Environment and Natual Resources Division

Isl HelenAe Listerman

HELENAN LISTERM
Trial Attorney
Natual Resources Section

Environment and Natual Resources Division

United States Deparent of Justice
P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 305-0239

Of Counsel:

Jennfer Dalton United States Corps of Engineers Little Rock Distrct Office of Counsel

3
-