Free Joint Preliminary Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00187-FMA

Document 7

Filed 07/09/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

07-187 C Judge Allegra

JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Rule 16 and Appendix A of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), counsel for plaintiff, United Medical Supply Co., Inc., ("United Medical") and defendant, the United States, submit the following joint preliminary status report in response to questions set forth in Appendix A. a. b. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the action? Should the case be consolidated with any other case?

The parties agree that this court has jurisdiction over this case. This case has been consolidated with 03-289. c. No. d. Should further proceedings in this case be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal? No. e. No. Will a remand or suspension be sought? Should trial of liability and damages be bifurcated?

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00187-FMA

Document 7

Filed 07/09/2007

Page 2 of 3

f. No. g.

Will additional parties be joined? Does either party intend to file a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b), 12(c), or 56?

Plaintiff believes that records produced by the Government establish liability and that the only factual issue is quantum. Plaintiff intends to file a motion for summary judgment on liability. Defendant does not at this time envision filing a dispositive motion. h. What are the relevant factual and legal issues? 1. Whether the Government received and accepted product from Plaintiff for which it has failed to pay, and if so, in what dollar amount. 2. Whether the Government's records or Plaintiff's records on the issue are the more reliable. i. What is the likelihood of settlement? The Government has advised Plaintiff that it believes settlement is unlikely. j. Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial? Does any party, or do the parties jointly, request expedited trial scheduling? The parties anticipate proceeding to trial but do not request an expedited trial. k. No. l. Is there any other information of which the Court should be aware at this time? No. m. Discovery Plan With respect to this particular case, Plaintiff has requested the deposition of Donna Galligan, the individual at DSCP who appears primarily responsible for the calculations and records at issue in the account receivable claim. Plaintiff also has requested the deposition of Anthony Amendolia, another individual with DSCP. Mr. Amendolia is believed to have some knowledge on the account receivable issue. These depositions should complete discovery with respect to the account receivable claim. Are there special issues regarding electronic case management needs

Signed: JULY 9, 2007.

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00187-FMA

Document 7

Filed 07/09/2007

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully Submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General s/Jeanne E. Davidson by Bryant G. Snee JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/Kyle Chadwick KYLE CHADWICK Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-0476 Attorneys for Defendant

s/Frank L. Broyles FRANK L. BROYLES Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon, LLP 1201 Elm St. Suite 4800 Dallas, TX 75270 Tele: (214) 969-5454 Attorneys for Plaintiff

-3-