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

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 51

Filed 10/19/2003

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS L.W. MATTESON, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 01-542C (Judge Lawrence J. Block)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 21 days, to and including November 14, 2003, within which to file and serve its reply to Plaintiff L.W. Matteson's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Plaintiff L.W. Matteson's Separate Statement of Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact. Defendant's reply brief currently is due on October 24, 2003. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. We attempted to reach counsel for plaintiff, L.W. Matteson, Inc. ("Matteson"), by telephone, but have not been able to obtain Matteson's position regarding our request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. We respectfully request an enlargement of time due to concurrent briefing deadlines facing defendant's counsel. Counsel must file an opening brief in Former Employees of Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC v. Labor, No. 03-1556 (Fed. Cir.) on October 17, 2003, and the Government's brief in Folden v. United States, No. 03-5124 (Fed. Cir.), on November 4, 2003. In addition, counsel is actively engaged in remand proceedings in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, No. 91-1204C (Fed. Cl.), a large and complex multi-billion dollar contract dispute that is in its12th year of litigation. The Government anticipates filing a substantive brief in those

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 51

Filed 10/19/2003

Page 2 of 3

remand proceedings in mid-November. In addition, currently, our agency counsel in this matter has a similarly busy schedule and desires more time to review the contents of Matteson's filings and to assist the undersigned counsel of record in developing the contents of our reply brief. We are mindful that our motion seeks an enlargement of time that is significantly greater than that contemplated by the Rules of this Court. However, we timely filed our motion for summary judgment in mid-July, and Matteson's counsel subsequently sought and obtained, with no objection by the Government, significant enlargements of time to file their opposition. Unfortunately, the current deadline for our reply brief, resulting from enlargements granted to Matteson, has occurred during an especially inopportune time for defendant's counsel. For these reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for an enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General s/David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director

2

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 51

Filed 10/19/2003

Page 3 of 3

OF COUNSEL: EDWIN C. BANKSTON District Counsel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Saint Paul, MN 55101

s/Patricia M. McCarthy PATRICIA M. McCARTHY Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307­0164 Fax: (202) 514-8640 Attorneys for Defendant

OCTOBER 17, 2003