United States of America et al v. NCR Corporation et al

Filing 199

ORDER, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FILED ON THE ISSUE, DENYING 182 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 08/02/2011. The STIPULATION filed July 29, 2011, 198 , is APPROVED and will govern the time in which the parties must answer and respond. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-C-910

NCR CORP. and APPLETON PAPERS INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

The Plaintiffs have filed an expedited motion seeking an extension of time in which to
answer the counterclaims brought against them by several Defendants. They assert that answering
them would be burdensome. Normally, that is no reason not to answer (an answer being required
by the Rules of Civil Procedure), but they assert that the pending consent decree, if approved by this
Court, would obviate their need to answer because it would eliminate most of the counterclaims
against them. Thus, they ask that they be allowed to delay answering until the matter of the consent
decree is decided.
The motion has been met with a chorus of objections from a number of the Defendants.
Several of the Defendants argue that any answers the Plaintiffs file would be directly relevant to the
matters at issue in the proposed consent decree. They also suggest that the matters at issue in the
consent decree would not affect their counterclaims seeking declaratory relief. Finally, they note
that the counterclaims were filed in 2010 and thus it is not as though the governments are being
asked to make a swift and harried response.

Although I am not without sympathy for the governments’ position, in my view the nature
of the proposed consent decree (i.e., one agency of the government settling with other agencies of
the same government) is unusual enough that the opposing Defendants should be entitled to the
fullest possible opportunity to explore its fairness. This includes receiving answers to their
counterclaims. Although I find it unlikely that the answers will add anything to the extensive
research and debate the issue will undoubtedly receive, I think it best to err on the side of caution
and require the Plaintiffs to answer in the normal course. My conclusion is made easier by virtue
of the stipulation filed on July 29, which offers something of a split-the-baby approach.
Specifically, the parties have agreed that if I deny the motion for an extension of time, the Plaintiffs
will have 45 days to answer, rather than the 10 days initially envisioned. Other extensions are
graciously provided for those opposing the consent decree. This seems a reasonable approach to
accommodating the needs of all sides, and accordingly I will adopt it.
The motion for an extension of time is DENIED. The stipulation filed July 29, 2011 is
approved and will govern the time in which the parties must answer and respond.
SO ORDERED this

2nd

day of August, 2011.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

2