Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01000-LB

Document 23

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 1 of 1

The United States Court of Federal Claims
No: 05-1000 C (Consolidated with No. 04-254 C) July 14, 2006 ENRON FEDERAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SCHEDULING ORDER On June 2, 2006 plaintiff filed its response and cross-motion to defendant's Rule 56 motion. Plaintiff also filed its proposed findings of uncontroverted fact, pursuant to 56(h)(2). However, plaintiff neglected to file its Rule 56(h)(2) response to defendant's proposed findings of uncontroverted fact. That rule requires the opposing party (here, plaintiff) to file "a response to the requested findings by indicating, immediately below each finding, whether it agrees or disagrees with the finding as stated. If the opposing party does not agree with the proposed finding, it shall note the basis for its objection and may draft a proposed revision of the finding directly below the challenged finding." RCFC 56(h)(2). Plaintiff may also file additional proposed findings of fact, as it did here as an analogue to its Rule 56 cross-motion, but those additional proposed findings must be filed in addition to the required RCFC 56(h)(2) response. Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to file its RCFC 56(h)(2) response no later than Friday, July 28, 2006. Furthermore, only discreet portions of the contract at issue in this case have to date been filed as appendices to the parties' motions and memoranda. The parties are ORDERED to jointly file, for the benefit of the court, a full and complete copy of the contract at issue in this case no later than Friday, July 28, 2006.

s/

Lawrence J. Block

Lawrence J. Block Judge