This defense fails as a matter of law for reasons tó numerous too detail. 4. Statute of Limitations Defendant’s position that Plaintiffs claim is barred by a six-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract actions is in error. There is no statute of limitations applicable to the federal government’s collection of student loans. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (1994); see also United States v. Smith, 811 F.Supp. 646, 647-48 (S.D.Ala.1992) (discussing elimination of statute of limitations by virtue of Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 1991). 5. Laches Although the federal government may, in certain circumstances, be subject to the defense of laches in the context of student loan collection, see United States v. Rhodes, 788 F.Supp. 339, 342-43 (E.D.Mich.1992) (<HOLDING>), this defense fails in this case because there
holding no prejudice occurred because no new information was presented on the material matter in dispute holding a fivemonth delay in searching a computer did not invalidate the search because there was no showing that the delay caused a lapse in probable cause that it created prejudice to the defendant or that officers acted in bad faith holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate holding seventeen year delay in collection effort caused material prejudice to defendant because relevant records were no longer accessible and therefore laches barred claim