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

Case 1:03-cv-02033-NBF

Document 50

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 03-2033C (Judge Firestone)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests the Court to grant an enlargement of time of 32 days, to and including July 28, 2006, to file defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment. By order dated June 13, 2006, our response is currently due on June 26, 2006. Counsel for plaintiff advised that he does not oppose this motion. On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 2006, the Court ordered that we respond to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by June 26, 2006. The Court did not acknowledge that plaintiff had also filed a motion for summary judgment. By the rules of the Court, our response should have been due 28 days after service of plaintiff's motion, which, with additional time for service by electronic means, the Government's response would otherwise be due on July 13, 2006. RCFC 6(e) and 7.1(c). The Government requests an additional brief period of time beyond that time because counsel for the Government has other commitments that require a substantial amount of her time. In particular, counsel for the Government is required to file a response to the complaint in Williams v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-124C, on June 16, 2006. Counsel is also required to

Case 1:03-cv-02033-NBF

Document 50

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 2 of 2

file a supplemental post-trial brief in Spodek v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 03-1444, on July 7, 2006. Counsel has also been required to devote her time to the bid protest proceedings in Interspiro, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-425, and Scott Technologies, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-443. Finally, counsel is required to be in Flagstaff, Arizona from June 19 through June 22, 2006, to defend depositions, and in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from July 17 through July 19, 2006, for ADR proceedings in Silver State Construction Co. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-978. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court to grant defendant's motion for an enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Donald E. Kinner DONALD E. KINNER Assistant Director s/ Doris S. Finnerman DORIS S. FINNERMAN Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Department of Justice Tel: (202) 307-0300 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant June 16, 2006