Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00195-MMS

Document 31

Filed 02/15/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-195 C (Filed: February 15, 2008) ************************************* DARRELL BOYE et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER On February 5, 2008, plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed "Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement Response to Motion for Protective Order." The court granted plaintiffs' motion the following day, directing plaintiffs to file the supplemental exhibit by February 13, 2008. On February 14, 2008, plaintiffs made two electronic submissions. First, plaintiffs filed a "Notice of Filing Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order." One half-hour later, plaintiffs filed a "Corrected Notice of Filing Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order." The clerk's office noted the following problems with plaintiffs' filings: · Plaintiffs filed the supplemental exhibit out of time. Thus, plaintiffs should have filed a motion for leave to file the exhibit pursuant to RCFC 6(b)(2). Plaintiffs improperly attempted to cure a mistake in their initial filing by filing a corrected exhibit. Because there is no provision in the RCFC for filing corrected submissions, the proper procedure is to file a motion for leave to file a corrected document.

·

Despite the above-noted defects, the court directs to clerk to file plaintiffs' "Corrected Notice of Filing Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order" by its

Case 1:07-cv-00195-MMS

Document 31

Filed 02/15/2008

Page 2 of 2

leave. However, plaintiffs are cautioned that the court may strike future filings if plaintiffs fail to comply with the RCFC. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge

-2-