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

Case 1:05-cv-00945-EGB

Document 10

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OGDEN SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-945C (Senior Judge Bruggink)

JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), Appendix A, the parties submit this Joint Preliminary Status Report. a. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the action?

Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) and the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1). At this time, the United States is not aware of any reason why the Court would not possess jurisdiction.

b. No.

Should the case be consolidated with any other case?

c. No.

Should the trial of liability and damages be bifurcated?

d. No.

Should further proceedings in this case be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal?

e. No.

Will a remand or a suspension be sought?

-1-

Case 1:05-cv-00945-EGB

Document 10

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 2 of 5

f. No.

Will additional parties be joined?

g.

Does either party intend to file a motion pursuant to RCFC 12(b), 12(c), or 56 and, if so, what is the proposed schedule for the intended filing?

Both parties may file dispositive motions, pursuant to Rule 56, following the conclusion of discovery.

h.

What are the relevant factual and legal issues?

Agreed-Upon Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff Ogden Support Services, Inc. ("Ogden") received the payments listed in paragraph 15 of the complaint. (2) In the event neither party is able to produce dispositive documentation as to whether Ogden received the payments listed in paragraph 15 of the complaint, which party is entitled to prevail, as a matter of law, based upon the other side's failure to adduce proof. Additional Defendant Issue: (1) Whether plaintiffs' claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

i.

What is the likelihood of settlement? Is alternative dispute resolution contemplated?

At this time, the parties cannot state whether the case can be settled and do not contemplate alternative dispute resolution. As discovery progresses, the parties will assess the appropriateness of settlement.

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00945-EGB

Document 10

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 3 of 5

j.

Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial? Does any party, or do the parties jointly, request expedited trial scheduling and, if so, why? What is the requested place of trial?

If this case cannot be resolved through settlement or dispositive motions, the parties anticipate that they will proceed to trial. Neither party requests an expedited trial schedule. If a trial is required, the parties request that it be held in Washington, D.C., the location most convenient to the potential witnesses.

k. No.

Are there special issues regarding electronic case management needs?

l.

Is there any other information of which the Court should be aware at this time?

Defendant advises the Court that many of the relevant documents maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") are classified as National Security Information. Accordingly, access to unredacted versions of these documents will be limited to those possessing appropriate security clearances. The CIA will endeavor to provide declassified versions of these materials in as timely a fashion as is feasible in light of competing demands upon the security officials responsible for declassification of materials.

m.

What is the proposed discovery plan?

The parties propose that discovery begin immediately. The parties currently do not contemplate the need for expert reports or expert testimony, but will promptly advise the Court if this determination changes. The parties recommend that all discovery be completed by June 2, 2006.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General -3-

Case 1:05-cv-00945-EGB

Document 10

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 4 of 5

DAVID M. COHEN Director /s/ Ronald K. Henry RONALD K. HENRY Kaye Scholer LLP 901 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-3500 Facsimile: (202) 682-3580 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: February 2, 2006 /s/ Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Assistant Director /s/ John Warshawsky JOHN WARSHAWSKY Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0010 Facsimile: (202) 514-9163 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: February 1, 2006

-4-

Case 1:05-cv-00945-EGB

Document 10

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 5 of 5

Notice of Filing I hereby certify that on February 2, 2005, a copy of the foregoing "Joint Preliminary Status Report" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and that parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

/s/ John Warshawsky _____________________________