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

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 284

Filed 05/09/2006

Page 1 of 2

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, Defendant United States hereby moves for a three-week extension of the time, to and including June 5, 2006, to file its reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Contract Claims (Doc. 280). 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 filed two unopposed motions for extensions of time to respond to

Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 270 and 276). Plaintiffs also filed an unopposed motion to exceed the page limit (Doc. 279). All three motions were granted and Plaintiffs filed a 43-page opposition to Defendant's motion on April 28, 2006 (Doc. 280). 3. Plaintiffs have also moved for leave to file a consolidated response to NRDC's

submissions in this case (Doc. 281). The Court granted this motion in part, giving Plaintiffs until

1

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 284

Filed 05/09/2006

Page 2 of 2

May 12, 2006 to file a response to NRDC's filing, subject to the limitations set forth in the Court's Order of May 1, 2006 (Doc. 283). 4. Pursuant to RCFC 7.2(c), Defendant's summary judgment reply brief is presently

due on or before May 15, 2006. In order to allow Defendant to file a single reply brief that responds to the arguments set forth in Plaintiffs' opposition brief and to any additional arguments made by Plaintiffs in their forthcoming response to NRDC's submissions, Defendant requests a three-week extension of time, to and including June 5, 2006, in which to file its summary judgment reply brief. In addition, a full three-week extension is requested because Defendant's counsel of record has two other court deadlines during the week of May 15: an appellate brief due on May 17 in Gomez v. Gonzales, No. 05-76901 (9th Circuit); and, a reply brief due on May 19 in Hash v. United States, No. CV99-0324S-MHW (D. Idaho). 5. Defendant has contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the three-week extension of

time requested in this motion, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for a three-week extension of time, to and including June 5, 2006, in which to file its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dated: May 9, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 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 2