Free Order Referring Case to ADR - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00884-LJB

Document 26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-884 C (Filed August 18, 2008) ********************* SOUTHEAST RESTORATION, * INC., d/b/a AFTERDISASTER, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ********************* ORDER On July 18, 2008, the parties, pursuant to Appendix A, ¶ 4 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) filed their joint preliminary status report (JPSR). Therein, the parties reported to the court that they anticipate that this case will go forward to litigation. In that regard, counsel for the parties are willing to engage in the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program; defendant's counsel proposes that the court suspend discovery; and plaintiff's counsel disagrees and offers a proposed discovery schedule. Additionally, before the court in this matter is plaintiff' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's motion is now fully briefed and the court's opinion shall be forthcoming. Defendant requests the stay of discovery until the court has issued its decision on plaintiff's pending motion. Plaintiff opposes defendant's request and seeks leave of the court, pursuant to RCFC 26(d), to commence discovery and proposes a discovery schedule. Plaintiff states that inasmuch as limited document disclosure has already occurred and since the subject agency's Office of Inspector General has completed a thorough review, discovery should commence.

Case 1:07-cv-00884-LJB

Document 26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 2

In the interest of judicial economy, the court would normally be inclined to grant a suspension of discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion. However, in light of the fact that the pending motion is only a partial motion, i.e., not a full motion for summary judgment with the possibility of disposing of the entire case, and since defendant does not offer any argument that persuades the court otherwise, defendant's motion to stay is denied. Since discovery will go forward the court directs the parties to confer and propose a joint proposed discovery schedule. Finally, the parties have evidenced a willingness to engage in ADR, and therefore, the court shall also refer the subject matter to an ADR Judge.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) Upon agreement of the undersigned with the Honorable Marian Blank Horn, this case is hereby REFERRED, for the purpose of ADR, to Judge Horn; and The parties are directed to FILE a Joint Proposed Discovery Schedule, on or before September 12, 2008, so that discovery may proceed in the subject matter.

(2)

s/Lynn J. Bush LYNN J. BUSH JUDGE

cc: Judge Marian B. Horn

/ The undersigned is willing, of course, to entertain any subsequent joint request to suspend discovery and/or other proceedings in this case if, as a result of ADR proceedings, the parties so desire.

1

2