Case Information
*1 Case 1:07-cv-00006-SGB Document 124 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 2
In The United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 07-06T, 07-706T, 08-135T, & 08-605T (Filed: September 27, 2012) __________ PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, et al. ,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. __________ ORDER __________
On September 26, 2012, defendant filed a motion seeking clarification of the spacing requirements in RCFC 5.5(c)(4) and for other relief. On September 27, 2012, plaintiffs filed their response to this motion. Having reviewed these materials, the court concludes, as follows:
1. RCFC 5.5(c)(4) requires that text be “double spaced.” It neither determines spacing based upon the number of points between lines nor based upon the number of lines on a page. The paragraph spacing option in Microsoft Word (the program that plaintiffs apparently used) clearly distinguishes between “double” spacing and spacing “exactly” at a specified number of points (see the attached computer screen shot). Despite plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, the court believes that it is clear enough that the former of these options is that intended by this court’s rules.
2. This court’s order of June 25, 2012, shall be modified to allow defendant sixty-seven pages for its response and cross-motion. All other provisions in this order (including, in particular, the size of plaintiffs’ response and reply) shall remain in effect.
3. The court’s scheduling order, as modified by its order of August 17, 2012, shall remain in effect. IT IS SO ORDERED . s/ Francis M. Allegra Francis M. Allegra Judge
*2 Case 1:07-cv-00006-SGB Document 124 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 2