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

Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA

Document 35

Filed 01/22/2004

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

CASE NO: 03-CV-289 Judge Allegra

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBITS TO PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 32-PAGE REPLY AND RESPONSE AS OF JANUARY 5, 2004 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiff United Medical Supply Company, Inc. files this its Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibits to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Response and Conditional Motion for Leave to File 32-Page Reply and Response and in support would show the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion last August. The Government filed its response and countermotion for partial summary judgment last December and Plaintiff timely filed its reply and response on January 5, 2004. Attached as three exhibits to Plaintiff's reply and response were specific evidentiary objections to the Government's summary judgment proof. 2. The Government correctly contends that the combined total pages for the reply and response plus the three exhibits is 32. The Government further contends that the exhibits must be counted toward the 30-page limit.

1

Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA

Document 35

Filed 01/22/2004

Page 2 of 3

3.

Until the Government filed is Motion to Strike, Plaintiff's counsel never even considered the possibility that evidentiary objections to almost 300 pages of summary judgment proof would be considered as part of the 30-page limit. Obviously, the Court in this circumstance is in a unique position of interpreting its own rule. If the Court's interpretation is the same as Plaintiff's then the Government's motion clearly should be denied.

4.

If, however, the Court's interpretation is the same as the Government's, then Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a 32-page brief, as of January 5, 2004, the date the brief was filed.

5.

In support of the alternative relief requested, Plaintiff's position is that any failure to adhere to the Court's 30-page rule was inadvertent, Plaintiff's position, at least in the mind of its counsel, is not unreasonable, and the additional pages are only two and deal with substantive objections to a large volume of Government summary judgment evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Government's motion to strike be

summarily denied, or alternatively, that Plaintiff be granted leave, as of January 5, 2004, to file a 32-page reply and response and that the Government's motion to strike be denied. Signed January 22, 2004.

2

Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA

Document 35

Filed 01/22/2004

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Frank L. Broyles Frank L. Broyles State Bar No. 03230500 Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon, LLP 1201 Elm Street 4800 Renaissance Tower Dallas, Texas 75270 (214) 969-5454 (214) 969-5902 Fax Attorney for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service On January 22, 2004 a genuine copy of the above reply was served on Mr. Kyle Chadwick by first class mail.

/s/Frank L. Broyles

3