United States of America v. Grynberg Petroleum Co.

Filing 28

ORDER. ORDERED that the United States Motion to Strike Defendant Grynberg Petroleum Company's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 21 is DENIED. ORDERED that Defendant Grynberg Petroleum Companys Motion for Leave to File Cross-Motion fo r Partial Summary Judgment 23 is GRANTED and Defendant's Cross- Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 20 is accepted as filed. ORDERED that the Government's Expedited, Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 25 is GRANTED. The Government shall file its Response to Defendants Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on or before Wednesday, July 25, 2012. The Defendant shall file its Reply on or before Wednesday, August 8, 2012. The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment 7 is DENIED as MOOT by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 07/10/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No.

11-cv-02945-WYD-CBS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRYNBERG PETROLEUM CO.,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Strike Defendant
Grynberg Petroleum Company’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No.
21], filed June 15, 2012. Defendant Grynberg Petroleum filed its Response [ECF No.
22], on June 19, 2012 and the Government filed its Reply [ECF No. 26] on June 29, 2012.
By way of background, on November 10, 2011, the United States filed suit to
collect civil penalties of $29,750 imposed by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (“BLM”), as well as interest and penalty charges for Defendant’s delinquent
payment of that debt pursuant to the Debt Collection Act (“DCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3701 et
seq. On March 28, 2012, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF
No. 7]. However, at a scheduling conference held on April 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge
Schaffer granted the Defendant leave to file an amended answer. See Minute Entry
[ECF No. 17], filed April 23, 2012.
At that hearing, the Government agreed to withdraw its initial Motion for Summary

Judgment [ECF No. 7] and to re-file that motion as a motion for partial summary judgment
on the limited issue of the application of the DCA to the collection of interest in the instant
case. Magistrate Judge Shaffer then ordered the following briefing schedule: The
United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment would be filed on or before May 9,
2012; Defendant’s Response would be filed on or before June 11, 2012; and the United
States’ Reply would be filed on or before June 25, 2012. See Transcript of Hearing
before Magistrate Judge Shaffer at 13:1-11, April 23, 2012. When the Plaintiff raised the
possibility of filing a cross-motion for summary judgment, Magistrate Judge Shaffer
instructed the parties to adhere to the same briefing deadlines, should a cross-motion be
filed. Id. at 14. The Defendant specifically agreed its cross-motion would be filed on
May 9, 2012. Id.
The United States filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] on
May 9, 2012, in accordance with the briefing schedule. However, the Defendant did not
file its Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] until June 7, 2012.
After the Government filed this motion to strike, Defendant also filed a Motion for Leave to
File Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 23], on June 20, 2012.
In the instant motion, the United States urges me to strike Defendant’s
Cross-Motion because it was not timely filed and because it forces the government to face
the prejudice of filing two briefs within the same time period. In its Response to the
Motion to Strike, [ECF No. 22], Defendant admits it made a mistake in filing the late
cross-motion. Counsel for the Defendant explains that he did not accurately docket the
deadline and mistakenly thought the cross-motion was due on June 11, 2012 with his
response to the Government’s partial summary judgment motion.
-2-

Having reviewed the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 18] and the Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20], I
agree with Defendant that these motions are mirror images of the same legal issue.
Both require that I address the issue of applying the DCA to the interest that the
government seeks to recover in this case. Moreover, I agree with Magistrate Judge
Shaffer that it is far more efficient to address this issue “in one fell swoop” than to strike
the cross-motion only to have the same issues briefed again at a later time. See
Transcript at 5:23-25.
Based on my review of the Government’s Motion to Strike, including the transcript
from the April 23, 2012 hearing before Magistrate Judge Shaffer, the Defendant’s
Response, and the Government’s Reply, I am not persuaded that the Government faces
prejudice from having to file its Reply brief for its own motion for partial summary
judgment and its Response to the cross-motion within the same time period. I believe
the Government has adequate resources to complete both briefs in a timely manner,
particularly given the time that has elapsed since the Government originally filed its
motion to strike. Furthermore, based on the Defendant’s explanation, I am convinced
that the untimely filing was a negligent mistake by counsel for the Defendant, rather than
an act of bad faith or an attempt to gain an advantage over the Government.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Strike Defendant Grynberg Petroleum
Company’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21], filed June 15,
2012 is DENIED. In light of this ruling, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Grynberg Petroleum Company’s Motion for
-3-

Leave to File Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23], filed June 20,
2012, is GRANTED and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 20], filed June 7, 2012 is accepted as filed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Expedited, Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 25], filed June 27, 2012 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Government shall file its Response to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on or before Wednesday, July 25, 2012. The Defendant shall file its Reply
on or before Wednesday, August 8, 2012. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the Government’s representation to
Magistrate Judge Shaffer at the hearing on April 23, 2012 that it would withdraw its
original motion for summary judgment, the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 7], filed March 28, 2012, is DENIED as MOOT.
Dated: July 10, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
U. S. District Judge

-4-