Case Information

*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/10/2015 3:30:23 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-15-00266-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/10/2015 3:30:23 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK NO. 01-15-00266-CV IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

UNOCAL PIPELINE COMPANY Appellant, v.

BP PIPELINES (ALASKA) INC., ET AL. Appellees APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P. mgiugliano@gibbsbruns.com TBA No. 24012702 Anthony N. Kaim akaim@gibbsbruns.com TBA No. 24065532 J. Benjamin Bireley bbireley@gibbsbruns.com 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 650-8805 Facsimile: (713) 750-0903 A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT U NOCAL P IPELINE C OMPANY *2 TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Unocal Pipeline Company (“Unocal”) files this Unopposed

Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief, and would respectfully

show the Court as follows:

A. The Present Deadline

The record in this case was filed on May 19, 2015. Under the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure, the brief for Appellants is due to be filed on or before June

18, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

B. The Length of the Extension Sought

Appellant seeks a thirty (30) day extension of time in which to file its brief.

Specifically, Appellant requests an extension from June 18, 2015 through and

including July 20, 2015, to file its brief.

C. Number of Previous Extensions Granted

This is the first extension Appellant has requested with respect to its brief.

D. Facts Explaining the Needed Extensions

Appellant seeks an extension of time to file its brief for the following

reasons. First, Appellant’s brief involves two summary judgment rulings on

separate causes of action and evidentiary rulings, which were extensively briefed

and argued separately at the trial court. One of the rulings at issue was the subject

of cross motions and the briefing included responses, replies, and sur-replies.

Accordingly, briefing both of these rulings in Appellant’s brief has resulted in the

need for additional time.

Second, Appellant’s counsel has unavoidable professional scheduling

conflicts which interfere with the ability of Appellant to meet the present filing

deadline. The primary drafter of Appellant’s brief is involved in a matter that has

numerous depositions scheduled per week in June.

Appellant has attempted to complete the brief by the present deadline, but

the above-noted conflicts and the numerous issues to be briefed make it impossible

to do so. This request is made not for improper purposes of delay, but so that

justice may be done.

Counsel for Appellees is not opposed to the requested extension.

WHEREFORE, Appellant Unocal Pipeline Company respectfully requests

that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File its Brief

and extend the time for Appellant to file its brief from June 18, 2015 through and

including July 20, 2015.

Respectfully submitted, G IBBS & B RUNS LLP By: /s/ mgiugliano@gibbsbruns.com Anthony N. Kaim akaim@gibbsbruns.com *4 TBA No. 24065532 J. Benjamin Bireley bbireley@gibbsbruns.com 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 650-8805 Facsimile: (713) 750-0903 A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT U NOCAL P IPELINE C OMPANY *5 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I conferred with counsel for Appellees, Michael V. Powell, who

has indicated that Appellees are unopposed to the relief requested in this motion.

/s/ . *6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 10th day of June, 2015 I served a copy of the foregoing

document upon the following attorneys of record via e-mail:

Michael V. Powell

Elizabeth L. Tiblets

Locke Lord LLP

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200

Dallas, Texas 75201

Fax: (214) 756-8520

mpowell@lockelord.com

etiblets@lockelord.com

Steven G. Reed

Lara E. Romansic

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-1795

Fax: (202) 429-3902

sreed@steptoe.com

lromansic@steptoe.com

/s/ .