GOOGLE, INC. et al v. USA

Filing 69

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply To Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Motion To Terminate The Stay Of Proceedings, Dissolve The Court's Preliminary Injunction, And Issue A Schedule To Resume Briefing On The Merits Of The Case, filed by USA. Response due by 5/2/2011.(Krafchek, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
BID PROTEST
*************************************
*
GOOGLE, INC.,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
and
*
*
ONIX NETWORKING CORPORATION, *
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
*
THE UNITED STATES,
*
*
Defendant,
*
*
and,
*
*
SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION,
*
*
Intervenor-Defendant.
*
*
*************************************

No. 10-743C
(Judge Susan G. Braden)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE
Pursuant to Rule 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims,
defendant, the United States, respectfully requests a seven-day enlargement of time, through and
including April 22, 2011, within which to file its reply to plaintiffs’ response to our motion to
terminate the stay of proceedings, dissolve the court's preliminary injunction, and issue a
schedule to resume briefing on the merits of the case (“plaintiffs’ opposition”). Currently, a reply
to plaintiffs’ opposition is due on April 15, 2011. This is defendant’s first request for an
enlargement of time for this purpose. The plaintiffs, through their respective counsel, have been
contacted regarding this request and they do not object. Intervenor-defendant also does not

object to this motion, provided that the time for its reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, currently due
on April 15, 2011, is equally enlarged by seven days, to and including April 22, 2011. Defendant
and plaintiffs’ do not oppose the request by intervenor-defendant.
This enlargement is requested to provide the defendant sufficient time to respond to
plaintiffs’ opposition, which raises significant and complex legal arguments, and to permit
sufficient time for supervisory review. Additionally, good cause exists for this request to enlarge
the date upon which a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition because undersigned counsel is actively
litigating another bid protest, Three S Consulting v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 10-583, before
this Court and an appeal before United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Mojarro
v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 2011-3079. Accordingly, although counsel for defendant has
worked diligently on this matter, additional time is required to complete defendant’s reply brief.
Defendant hopes this requested extension is not overly burdensome, and apologizes for
any inconvenience this may cause the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests a seven-day enlargement of
time, through and including April 22, 2011, within which to file our reply to plaintiffs’
opposition.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
s/ Kirk T. Manhardt
KIRK T. MANHARDT
Assistant Director
2

OF COUNSEL
SHERYL RAKESTRAW
Attorney Advisor
Department of the Interior

s/ Christopher L. Krafchek
CHRISTOPHER L. KRAFCHEK
Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
Department of Justice
1100 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

April 13, 2011

Attorneys for Defendant

3

CERTIFICATE OF FILING
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of April, 2011, a copy of the foregoing “Unopposed
Motion To Enlarge” was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to
all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing
through the Court's system.
s/Christopher L. Krafchek