Free Order on Motion for Discovery - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00055-TCW

Document 42

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-55C (Filed: July 9, 2007) ******************************************* * * CHE CONSULTING, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant, * * and * * STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * ******************************************* * ORDER In this bid protest action, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery on June 8, 2007 requesting the procuring agency to produce documents generated in the course of the agency's review of the marketplace, and for leave to take depositions of the Contracting Officer, Ms. Brenda Spence, and another agency representative, Mr. Peter Gruzinskas. In accordance with the Court's May 31, 2007 oral order, Defendant and Intervenor filed oppositions to Plaintiff's motion on June 25, 2007. Defendant previously has filed the Administrative Record providing the basis for the agency's decision to combine the hardware and software maintenance support services for the agency's Major Shared Resource Center ("MSRC") robotic tape library, and has supplemented that record on May 21, 2007 at the Court's suggestion. Plaintiff's June 8, 2007 discovery motion reflects disagreement with the agency's decision rationale, but does not convincingly identify any areas where the Administrative Record requires further supplementation. Although Plaintiff relies upon factors (1) through (4) in Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C. Cir. 1989) as authority for its discovery, the Court is not persuaded that the agency's decision "is not adequately explained," that the agency "failed to consider factors which are relevant to its final decision," or that the "agency -1-

Case 1:07-cv-00055-TCW

Document 42

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 2 of 2

considered evidence which it failed to include in the record." Id. Similarly, the Court does not find this case so complex that more evidence is needed to enable a clear understanding of the issues. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for discovery is DENIED. The issue remaining before the Court is whether the agency's decision to combine the hardware and software maintenance services in a single acquisition is rationally based. The Court hereby establishes the following schedule for the filing of motions for judgment on the Administrative Record: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motion and supporting brief shall be filed on or before July 23, 2007; Defendant's and Defendant-Intervenor's cross-motions and supporting briefs shall be filed on or before August 6, 2007; and Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before August 13, 2007.

3.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas C. Wheeler THOMAS C. WHEELER Judge

-2-