Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 70

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 1 of 4

United States Court of Federal Claims

GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., d/b/a BlueLincs HMO, Texas Health Choice, L.C., and Scott & White Health Plan, Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant.

No. 01-517C Judge Marian Blank Horn

BLUELINCS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT Plaintiff GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. d/b/a BlueLincs HMO ("BlueLincs"), by counsel, submits the following Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit and states: The Government comes to this Court seeking leave to exceed the page limit for its Reply Brief by an incredible 40 pages. The Government did not seek consent of the parties before filing its Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit and, instead filed that Motion on the day its brief was due to be filed, even though the Government surely must have known beforehand that it would not meet the page limit set forth in the Rules. And, this is not the first time the Government has sought to inundate the Court and the parties with paper. The Government asked the Court for leave to exceed the page limit by a large order of magnitude in its initial brief as well. Then, BlueLincs was silent and did not object to the Government's request. Now, the

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 70

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 2 of 4

Government's current request is so excessive and unjustified, that BlueLincs must oppose the Government's Motion. The Government fails to provide any valid reason why it needs almost 60 pages to do what the Rules contemplate can be accomplished in 20. Rather than state the reasons why it needs to exceed the 20 page limit, the Government instead uses its four page Motion for Leave to summarize the arguments it has made in its verbose Reply Brief1. In fact, the Government's only purported rationale for why it needs additional pages does not support its request. The Government states that this is a consolidated case brought by three plaintiffs. But the Government goes on to note that all three plaintiffs' arguments are "essentially the same, the only difference being that Bluelincs raises a `forfeiture' argument in its brief." Defendant's Motion for Leave, p. 2. Significantly, the Government devoted only two paragraphs out of its 60 page Reply Brief to respond to the "forfeiture" argument. See Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 56-57. Based on the Government's own rationale, all the Government needed was the 20 page limit identified in the Rules to adequately respond to the arguments raised by the plaintiffs. The Government's Motion for Leave should be denied. Plaintiffs, Texas Health Choice, L.C. and Scott & White Health Plan, join in this Response. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. d/b/a BlueLincs HMO, requests that Defendant's Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit be denied.
The Government has employed this device previously in this case. Rather than explain why the Declaration of Nancy Kichak should be considered by the Court, the Government instead re-argued the merits in its Opposition to the Motion to Strike filed by the lead plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. The Government also took the opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case in its filings seeking an extension of time to file its Reply Brief. The Court should give short shrift to these tactics.
1

2

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 70

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 5, 2006 _s/Daniel B. Abrahams________ Daniel B. Abrahams EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington D.C. 20037 PHONE: (202) 861-0900 FAX: (202) 296-2882 [email protected] Of Counsel: Constance A. Wilkinson Michael D. Maloney EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington D.C. 20037 PHONE: (202) 861-0900 FAX: (202) 296-2882

3

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 70

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 5th day of June, 2006, I caused to be electronically served a copy of BlueLincs Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit on the following: Michael S. Nadel McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 [email protected]

Jane W. Vanneman, Esq. Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Department of Justice ATTN: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 [email protected]

_s/Daniel B. Abrahams________

4