Free Order on Motion to Amend Pleadings - Rule 15(b) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00146-TCW

Document 22

Filed 05/07/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 06-146C (Filed: May 7, 2007) ***************************************** * * TETRA TECH EC, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ***************************************** * ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's April 13, 2007 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; and (2) Defendant's April 24, 2007 Motion for an Enlargement of Time to complete discovery. Both motions are contested by the opposing party, and have been fully briefed. Plaintiff's motion seeks to add new paragraph 28 and Count VI to the Complaint, to include an alternative method of calculating damages. Plaintiff asserts that the Government developed the alternative calculation method, and that Plaintiff first learned of this method during discovery conducted in January and February 2007. Plaintiff also wishes to correct a typographical error in its original Complaint, where the claimed amount was "$1,118,422.62," but should have stated "$1,188,422.62," the amount of Plaintiff's certified claim to the Contracting Officer. For good cause shown, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall allow the filing of the Amended Complaint, submitted concurrently with Plaintiff's April 13, 2007 motion. Defendant's motion requests additional time to complete discovery. Defendant first requested 25 days, from April 30, 2007 to May 25, 2007, to conduct fact depositions. Defendant cited schedule conflicts arising from a recently filed bid protest, Ravens Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-243 (Fed. Cl.). In opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Defendant requested that discovery be re-opened for 60 days if the

Case 1:06-cv-00146-TCW

Document 22

Filed 05/07/2007

Page 2 of 2

Court were to grant Plaintiff's motion. Under the current schedule, discovery was to be completed by April 30, 2007. The Court previously granted a 30-day discovery extension requested by Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's schedule conflicts are not so much caused by the Ravens Group bid protest, but by Defendant's failure to conduct any discovery in the previous year. In considering the parties' positions, Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part. The Court will extend the discovery period by 45 days, to and including June 14, 2007. Further extensions of the discovery period will not be considered absent a showing of extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas C. Wheeler THOMAS C. WHEELER Judge

-2-