Lockheed Martin Corporation et al v. United States of America

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION to Dismiss

D.D.C.November 21, 2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ) & ) UNISYS CORPORATION, ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NUMBER: 1:06CV01438 (RJL) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiffs Lockheed Martin Corporation and Unisys Corporation hereby respond to the United States of America's Motion for Enlargement of Time. The United States' request for yet another delay is unwarranted, and Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion. I. THE UNITED STATES HAS HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO REPLY Plaintiffs timely filed their Response to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss on November 17, 2006. Under the local rules of this Court, the United States has five days to file its optional reply memorandum. LCvR 7(d). Due to the Thanksgiving holiday and intervening two weekends, that five days totals ten calendar days pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). The United States now seeks to enlarge its time to reply until December 14, 2006, an increase that will more than quadruple the time for filing a reply memorandum allotted under this Court’s rules. This extension is entirely unreasonable, especially when submission of a reply memorandum is entirely voluntary in the first place. See LCvR 7(d) (“Within five days after service of the memorandum in opposition the moving party may serve and file a reply memorandum.”). Case 1:06-cv-01438-RJL Document 15 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 2 II. THE UNITED STATES' REPEATED REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS This request already marks the United States’ third for an enlargement of time in this nascent litigation, and is part of a troubling pattern of delay. After Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 15, 2006, the United States’ first action was to seek an extension of 14 days in which to file its response, to which Plaintiffs consented, even though by operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the United States had already been granted a more lenient timetable in which to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint. The United States’ second action was to move the Court for another extension of time in which to respond to the Complaint, despite the fact that it already had 74 days to respond to the Complaint. The United States now seeks its third enlargement of time in slightly more than three months, seeking a full 27 days to file their optional reply brief. Further delay on the part of the United States in replying to already well-briefed issues is needless - the factual and legal issues in this dispute are already adequately developed and briefed for the Court's consideration. After long delays endured in hopes of settling this matter without recourse to litigation, Plaintiffs continue to incur response costs during this litigation and wish to move this case forward as expeditiously as possible to settle the United States' responsibility for those costs. Case 1:06-cv-01438-RJL Document 15 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 3 III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the United States’ Motion should be denied. Dated: November 21, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ MICHAEL K. MURPHY Peter E. Seley, D.C. Bar Number 440936 Michael K. Murphy, D.C. Bar Number 468907 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500 mmurphy@gibsondunn.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Lockheed Martin Corporation and Unisys Corporation Case 1:06-cv-01438-RJL Document 15 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 3