Shasta Strategic Investment Fund LLC et al v. United States of America

Filing 166

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/14/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 DAVID A. HUBBERT Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 JAMES E. WEAVER 3 ADAIR F. BOROUGHS Trial Attorneys 4 Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 5 Washington, DC 20044-0683 Tel: (202) 305-4929 6 Fax: (202) 307-2504 E-mail: 7 E-mail: 8 Attorneys for United States of America 9 MELINDA L. HAAG (CaSBN 132612) 10 United States Attorney Northern District of California 11 Of Counsel 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SHASTA STRATEGIC INVESTMENT ) FUND, LLC; AND PRESIDIO GROWTH ) LLC (Tax Matters Partner), ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Respondent. 22 23 24 25 26 27 And Related Cases Case No. C-04-4264-RS Related to Case Nos. C-04-4309-RS, C-04-4398RS, C-04-4964-RS, C-05-1123-JW, C-05-1996RS, C-05-2835-RS, and C-05-3887-RS STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS ) ) ) ) ) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, the United States requests that the Court extend the page limits for briefing on motions for summary judgment to 45 pages for initial motions and oppositions 28 Stipulation Case No. C-04-4264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 and 25 pages for replies. The other parties do not object to this request. In support of this request Respondent submits the following: 1. Under Local Rule 7-2(b), motions for summary judgement cannot exceed 25 pages in length, including a statement of facts and a memorandum of points and authorities. 2. Under Local Rule 7-4(b), opposition briefs may not exceed 25 pages of text and reply briefs may not exceed 15 pages of text. 3. Under the current scheduling order, motions for summary judgment must be filed by March 21, 2013. 4. These related cases all concern a structured transaction, the Bond-Linked Issue 12 Premium Structure (“BLIPS”), that was designed for tax benefits and sold to numerous participants 13 in the late 1990s. Petitioners contend that BLIPS involved a legitimate investment program. 14 Respondent contends, among other things, the BLIPS transactions lacked economic substance and 15 16 17 were shams. 5. Presentation of the United States’ case for summary judgment in this matter will include 18 an involved Statement of Facts regarding (a) the nature of the BLIPS program, (b) a description of 19 the various components of the program, (c) a description of how the program was implemented and 20 (d) an economic and financial analysis of the program, as applied to these Petitioners. In addition, 21 this case will require legal briefing on the procedural posture of this case, the substance of the 22 23 24 25 26 27 transaction, and a penalty analysis under 26 U.S.C. § 6662. Due to the complexity of the BLIPS transactions, the United States expects this briefing to exceed the 25-page limit under local rules. 6. Therefore, the United States requests that the Court extend the page limit for summary judgment motions in this matter, from 25 pages to 45 pages, so that it can fully present its case for summary judgment. 28 -2- Stipulation Case No. C-04-4264 1 2 3 4 5 7. page limit extensions, the United States also requests that the page limit for oppositions to summary judgment motions be extended from 25 to 45 pages and that the page limit for reply briefs be extended from 15 to 25 pages. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AND STIPULATED by the parties, subject to an 6 7 order of the Court that: 8 (A) Motions for summary judgment may not exceed 45 pages of text; 9 (B) Briefs or memoranda in opposition to summary judgment may not exceed 45 pages of 10 11 12 In fairness and to save the Court time from having to rule on three separate requests for text; (C) Reply briefs or memoranda may not exceed 25 pages of text. 13 Dated: March 13, 2013 Respectfully submitted 14 /s/ Margaret Tough MARGARET TOUGH Latham & Watkins Attorney for Petitioners /s/ Adair F. Boroughs ADAIR F. BOROUGHS Trial Attorney Tax Division, Department of Justice Attorney for Respondent /s/ William E. Taggart, Jr. WILLIAM E. TAGGART, JR. Attorney for Intervenors Adkison, McNair, and Salmon Ventures /s/ Martin A. Schainbaum MARTIN A. SCHAINBAUM Attorney for Intervenors Soward/Voltaire and Gonzales/Birch 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 /s/ Jessica C. Munk JESSICA C. MUNK Law Office of David W. Wiechert Attorney for Intervenors Clarence Ventures, LLC and J. Paul Reddam PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: 3/14/13 ____________________________ Richard Seeborg United States District Judge 28 -3- Stipulation Case No. C-04-4264

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?