Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 40.1 kB
Pages: 1
Date: March 31, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 303 Words, 1,936 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22720/23.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Federal Claims ( 40.1 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00725-MMS

Document 23

Filed 03/31/2008

Page 1 of 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-725 C (Filed: March 31, 2008) ************************************* BRISTOL BAY AREA * HEALTH CORPORATION, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER On March 28, 2008, plaintiff filed a Status Report in Response to the Court's Order of March 19, 2008 ("status report"). The Clerk of the Court noted that plaintiff utilized an incorrect event designation when it filed its status report using ECF. Although plaintiff should have selected the status report event found in the "Other Documents" menu, the error is harmless. Consequently, the court directs the Clerk of the Court to file plaintiff's status report by its leave. In its status report, plaintiff indicates that it (1) will not seek discovery on the jurisdictional arguments raised by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss, (2) intends to file its response to defendant's motion by no later than April 2, 2008, unless otherwise directed by the court; and (3) reserves the right to request discovery on other matters, such as those related to the merits of the action, if plaintiff believes discovery is warranted at a later stage in the litigation. In light of plaintiff's representations that it will not seek discovery and intends to file a response to defendant's motion to dismiss by April 2, 2008, the court reinstates that deadline.1 Accordingly, plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss shall be filed no later than April 2, 2008. In the event that plaintiff determines that it requires additional time, it shall file the appropriate motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge
1

In its March 19, 2008 order, the court vacated the April 2, 2008 deadline "[b]ecause it appears that discovery may be necessary in this case . . . ."