From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cencast Services, L.P. v. U.S.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Sep 9, 2010
Nos. 02-1916 T, 02-1917 T, 02-1918 T, 02-1919 T, 02-1920 T, 02-1921 T, 02-1922 T, 02-1923 T, 02-1924 T, 02-1925 T (Fed. Cl. Sep. 9, 2010)

Summary

In Cencast, the court noted both Tax Analysts and Coastal States relied on a body of D.C. Circuit case law focusing on whether the information communicated between the agency attorney and the agency is confidential rather than on whether the communication itself is made in confidence between attorney and client notwithstanding the potentially public nature of the information conveyed.

Summary of this case from Aroeste v. United States

Opinion

Nos. 02-1916 T, 02-1917 T, 02-1918 T, 02-1919 T, 02-1920 T, 02-1921 T, 02-1922 T, 02-1923 T, 02-1924 T, 02-1925 T.

September 9, 2010


ORDER


On September 3, 2010, the Court filed an Opinion and Order that, inter alia, granted in part plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a consolidated, amended and supplemental complaint by Friday, September 10, 2010 (docket entry 349). Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to file their consolidated, amended and supplemental complaint (docket entry 350, Sept. 8, 2010), citing the shortened work week due to Labor Day and Rosh Hashanah. Plaintiffs request an additional 21 days to "evaluate how they wish to proceed on that Complaint." Defendant consents to the plaintiffs' request.

In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs' consolidated, amended and supplemental complaint, previously required to be filed on September 10, 2010, shall instead be filed by Friday, October 1, 2010.

(2) Defendant's response to plaintiffs' consolidated, amended and supplemental complaint, previously required to be filed on September 24, 2010, shall instead be filed by Friday, October 15, 2010.

(3) Plaintiffs' reply (if any), previously required to be filed on October 15, 2010, shall instead be filed by Friday, October 22, 2010.

(4) The parties' joint status report, describing the issues that remain to be resolved, the current status of discovery, and the nature and timing of further proceedings, previously required to be filed on October 22, 2010, shall instead be filed by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 28, 2010.

(5) The status conference scheduled for Friday, October 29, 2010 at 10 a.m. Eastern Time at the National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place N.W., Washington, D.C., will proceed as scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cencast Services, L.P. v. U.S.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Sep 9, 2010
Nos. 02-1916 T, 02-1917 T, 02-1918 T, 02-1919 T, 02-1920 T, 02-1921 T, 02-1922 T, 02-1923 T, 02-1924 T, 02-1925 T (Fed. Cl. Sep. 9, 2010)

In Cencast, the court noted both Tax Analysts and Coastal States relied on a body of D.C. Circuit case law focusing on whether the information communicated between the agency attorney and the agency is confidential rather than on whether the communication itself is made in confidence between attorney and client notwithstanding the potentially public nature of the information conveyed.

Summary of this case from Aroeste v. United States

reasoning that it should be sufficient to find an attorney-client privilege if a party created the notes to aid in a meeting with an attorney

Summary of this case from Canarelli v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
Case details for

Cencast Services, L.P. v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:CENCAST SERVICES, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

Court:U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Date published: Sep 9, 2010

Citations

Nos. 02-1916 T, 02-1917 T, 02-1918 T, 02-1919 T, 02-1920 T, 02-1921 T, 02-1922 T, 02-1923 T, 02-1924 T, 02-1925 T (Fed. Cl. Sep. 9, 2010)

Citing Cases

Aroeste v. United States

Some courts, none of which bind this Court, have implicitly construed the statue as permitting the government…

Wyandot, Inc. v. United States

But “[c]ourts are reluctant to find that a refund request for one year can include another, unlisted, year.”…