Document 49-2
Filed 01/07/2008
Page 1 of 3
Robert Ryland/Washington DC/Kirkland-Ellis 01/07/2008 11:55 AM
To "Schwind, Gregg (CIV)"
Gregg -I received this morning (Monday morning) your email (below) of last Friday night (at 6:53pm) asking Devis "if there is any room to compromise" its request to release the December 11 proposed redaction of FBO Contract Modification PS02, and your email (also below) of Saturday afternoon (at 3:45pm) asking whether Devis would agree to an extension of time to respond to its pending motion. I also received an ECF notice that last night, Sunday evening at 8:11pm, you filed a "Motion for an Enlargement of Time" stating to the Court that "Devis has not yet responded to our compromise proposal." Of course, your email (below) made no specific proposal, instead, you merely indicated that you were "willing to compromise." Devis does oppose your "Motion for an Enlargement of Time." Devis also rejects your suggestion that it should agree to some (unspecified) greater redaction of FBO Contract Modification PS02 than I had proposed on December 11. Devis further believes this matter could have and should have been resolved within 2 days after I circulated the proposed redaction to you (almost four weeks ago). Devis will file a formal opposition to your motion this afternoon. ROBERT S. RYLAND | Partner | Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 15th Street, N.W. · Suite 1200 · Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 879-5000 PHONE · (202) 879-5086 DIRECT (202) 879-5200 FAX · (202) 654-9523 E-FAX [email protected] E-MAIL "Schwind, Gregg (CIV)"
"Schwind, Gregg (CIV)"
To
Rob and Bill: I neglected to ask this explicitly in my earlier message. Please let me know whether ISC and Devis oppose the motion for enlargement to respond to the motion to unseal. Thank you. Gregg
Case 1:07-cv-00744-SGB
Document 49-2
Filed 01/07/2008
Page 2 of 3
----- Original Message ----From: Schwind, Gregg (CIV) To: '[email protected]'
Case 1:07-cv-00744-SGB
Document 49-2
Filed 01/07/2008
Page 3 of 3
01/03/2008 06:08 PM To Alex McBride/DCA/CFC/USCOURTS@USCOURTS cc Subject Information Sciences Corp
AlexPlease forward this message to all parties. I reviewed ICS/DEVIS's Dec. 21 motion to file a Second Amended Complaint and another TRO/Motion for PI, when it arrived in Chambers over the holidays. The time for the Gov't and Symplicity to respond has not expired, so I certainly do not intend to rule on substantive motions without allowing all the parties to express their views. Mr. Shook and Mr. Ryland's oral entreaties for me to take action before the other parties have spoken are not welcome. Moreover, it was my distinct impression from the Dec. oral argument that all were content to follow the normal briefing schedule we established. I also reviewed DEVIS's Dec. 20 motion to unseal the proposed redacted second contract modification. Again, the time for responsive briefing has not expired. It seems to me that this motion should be considered first. If it is granted, there may be a need for ISC to further amend the Complaint, rendering their pending motion moot. If the court grants another amendment, it will be the last. When the court has received all responsive (and reply briefs) due, we can set up a telephone conference to discuss sometime next week. JB