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)

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: [phone]
6 Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
7 E-mail: [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