Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 45.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: January 7, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,038 Words, 6,119 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22737/49-2.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims ( 45.3 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00744-SGB

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)" cc "Tantum, Amanda (CIV)" , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] bcc Subject Information Sciences Corp - Devis opposition to motion to enlarge time

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)" 01/05/2008 03:45 PM

To , , cc "Tantum, Amanda (CIV)" Subject Re: Information Sciences Corp - FROM JUDGE BRADEN

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]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' Cc: Tantum, Amanda (CIV) Sent: Fri Jan 04 18:53:05 2008 Subject: Re: Information Sciences Corp - FROM JUDGE BRADEN Rob: I am currently on travel preparing for a trial that will use all five days next week. Given Judge Braden's past practice when we objected to ISC's and Devis' claims of protection, I expected the court to resolve telephonically Devis' motion to unseal. Now it appears Judge Braden wants a formal written response. Given my schedule, I intend to ask for a two week enlargement to file the US response. In the meantime, I'd like to ask if there is any room to compromise here. That is, a way that you can ask your client what you need while maintaining the protected status of the modification. For example, my recollection is that the mod removed the requirement to utilize BEA weblogic. We have no objection to your asking your client what he would have done or priced differently without that softeware requirement. You do not need to reveal to Devis that GSA issued a mod to Symplicity's contract in order for your client to respond. Please let me know if this type of compromise will work. If so, let me know what information you would like to disclose or what you would like to ask your client related to the mod. My thought is that you do not need to show or reveal the contents of the mod to get what you need. Honestly, the mod has been rescinded so I do not see any need at all to discuss it with your client at all. But again, I am willing to compromise if the protected status of the mod can be maintained. Gregg ----- Original Message ----From: [email protected] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Schwind, Gregg (CIV); [email protected] Sent: Fri Jan 04 09:45:17 2008 Subject: Fw: Information Sciences Corp - FROM JUDGE BRADEN Mr. Alex McBride Law Clerk to the Honorable Susan G. Braden United States Court of Federal Claims Telephone: (202) 357-6518 Facsimile: (202) 357-6522 ----- Forwarded by Alex McBride/DCA/CFC/USCOURTS on 01/04/2008 09:39 AM ----Susan Braden/DCA/CFC/USCOURTS (Fed Cl Judge)

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