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

Case 1:05-cv-00281-NBF

Document 29

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

UNISYS CORPORATION,

No. 05-281C (Judge Firestone)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to RCFC 6(b) and 6.1, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of one week (to and including January 12, 2007) of the time within which defendant may file its cross-motion and opposition to plaintiff Unisys Corporation's motion for summary judgment on the surplus transfer issue (plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Unisys' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion"), dated October 27, 2006).1 Absent the requested relief, defendant would be required to file its cross-motion and opposition on or before January 5, 2007. See Order dated December 18, 2006. This is defendant's second request for an enlargement of time for this purpose, the Court having granted defendant's first request (for a 21-day enlargement) in its December 18 order. On January 3, 2007, undersigned counsel for defendant left a voice mail message for

As the Court is aware, the briefing schedule on this issue has been coordinated with the briefing schedule on the same issue in General Electric Co. v. United States, No. 99-172C. Defendant is also filing an unopposed motion in GE requesting that the Court adopt the same revised briefing schedule in that case that defendant is requesting in this case.

1

Case 1:05-cv-00281-NBF

Document 29

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 4

Terry L. Albertson, Esq., counsel for plaintiff, stating that defendant intended to request a oneweek enlargement (with comparable one-week enlargements of the remaining briefing deadlines). Plaintiff's counsel responded by electronic mail message that stated that plaintiff would have no objection to defendant's request. The revised briefing schedule would be: January 12, 2007 February 16, 2007 Defendant's opposition and cross-motion Plaintiff's reply in support of its brief and response to defendant's cross-motion Defendant's reply

March 16, 2007

The grounds for the motion are that it will not be possible for defendant to complete the preparation of its responsive papers by the current due date (January 5, 2007). Plaintiff's moving papers are lengthy and detailed. The one-week enlargement requested is required in order to allow defendant the opportunity to complete the preparation of its responsive papers, papers that we believe will be of assistance to the Court in resolving the surplus transfer issue. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order revising the briefing schedule as follows: January 12, 2007 February 16, 2007 Defendant's opposition and cross-motion Plaintiff's reply in support of its brief and response to defendant's cross-motion Defendant's reply

March 16, 2007

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00281-NBF

Document 29

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

s/ David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director OF COUNSEL: STEPHEN R. DOOLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency 495 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Dated: January 3, 2007 s/ C. Coleman Bird C. COLEMAN BIRD Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: 202.307.0453 Facsimile: 202.514.7965 Attorney for Defendant United States

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00281-NBF

Document 29

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2007, a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Unopposed Motion for 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/ C. Coleman Bird