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

Case 1:06-cv-00122-FMA

Document 26

Filed 04/05/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NVT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-122C (Judge Allegra)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests the Court to grant an enlargement of time of three days, to and including April 14, 2006, within which to file our cross motion for judgment upon the administrative record. to be filed on April 11, 2006. Our motion is due

This is our first request for an Counsel for plaintiff, NVT

enlargement of time for this purpose.

Technologies, Inc. ("NVT") has authorized us to state that NVT does not oppose this motion, provided that NVT is afforded an additional three business days to file its reply brief (i.e., May 4, 2006). We do not oppose such an extension for NVT; indeed, we

suggested it. Counsel for the United States has a brief due on April 10, 2006. Air Force v. United Technol Corp., 05-1393 (Fed. Cir.). The

No further enlargements of time are possible in that case.

Air Force case involves numerous legal issues, and a huge record. In addition, there is a related case in district court. As a

result, drafting has been a time-consuming and difficult task. Furthermore, there is a need for extensive coordination with the

Case 1:06-cv-00122-FMA

Document 26

Filed 04/05/2006

Page 2 of 4

Frauds Section of the Department of Justice, the Air Force, and superiors within the Department of Justice before the brief is ready to be filed. Because counsel for the United States has been required to devote nearly all of his time to the Air Force case for several weeks, he has not yet had an opportunity to prepare the brief in this case. We are committed to the schedule set by the Court in this case, including the hearing date for oral argument. Furthermore,

we have no intention of inconveniencing counsel for NVT because we have been busy. Accordingly, we suggested that additional

time for our initial brief could be deducted from the time available for our reply brief. This would change the due date

for the NVT reply brief, but NVT would still have the same amount of time to prepare its reply. The enlargement of time requested is needed. Counsel for

the agency in this case has prepared a draft brief, but counsel for the United States must review the draft, perform legal research, review the record, and prepare a final draft brief. addition, time is needed for review of the final draft brief by agency counsel and by superiors within the Department of Justice. For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court grant our unopposed motion for an enlargement of time. In

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00122-FMA

Document 26

Filed 04/05/2006

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director /S Donald E. Kinner DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director /S James W. Poirier JAMES W. POIRIER Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: 202-307-6289 Fax: 202-514-7969 April 5, 2006 Attorneys for Defendant

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00122-FMA

Document 26

Filed 04/05/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on April 5, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN 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. the Court's system. S/ James W. Poirier Parties may access this filing through

-4-