Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00016-LMB

Document 36

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case No. 07-16C (Filed: February 16, 2007) ********************************************** M&A TECHNOLOGY, INC., * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * Defendant, * * and * * STEELCLOUD, INC. * Intervenor. * * ********************************************** ORDER On February 7, 2007, Defendant informed the Court that the United States Postal Service intended to take corrective action in this case. On February 8, 2007, the USPS terminated for convenience the contract at issue in this case and announced its intention to recompete the contract by issuing a new solicitation. Also on February 8, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. On February 9, 2007, pursuant to this Court's scheduling order, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. On February 14, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Alternatively, Defendant requested that if the Court intended to proceed with the briefing of both motions simultaneously, that Defendant be permitted to file its response to Plaintiff's motion within 14 days of the Court's order on this motion.

Case 1:07-cv-00016-LMB

Document 36

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 2 of 2

It is the Court's practice to expedite bid protest cases to the extent practicable. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Stay the briefing of the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record until the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court believes that a simultaneous briefing schedule would result in the most expeditious resolution of this dispute. Under the current expedited briefing schedule, the final brief on the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is to be filed on March 16, 2007, and oral argument is scheduled for March 23, 2007. Under the Court's rules, the final brief on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss would be due on March 22, 2007. The Court believes that the jurisdictional issue and merits of the case can be adequately addressed by the parties in their briefs and does not intend, at this point, to schedule an oral argument. As such, the Court hereby issues the following revised briefing schedule: · March 8, 2007: Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Defendant's and Intervenor's Oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record Defendant's Reply on its Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff's Reply on its Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record

·

March 22, 2007:

The Court no longer requires the parties to file a Consolidated Statement of Facts. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lawrence M. Baskir LAWRENCE M. BASKIR Judge