Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 23.2 kB
Pages: 2
Date: April 16, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 357 Words, 2,288 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/19954/50.pdf

Download Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims ( 23.2 kB)


Preview Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:05-cv-00551-LJB

Document 50

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 05-551 C (Filed April 16, 2008) ************************ HM2 CORPORATION, d/b/a HM2 * CONSTRUCTORS and FABRICATORS, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************ ORDER On April 16, 2008, the court held a status conference on four pending motions in the subject matter, all related to a discovery dispute between the parties. These motions are plaintiff's motion to compel, filed January 26, 2008, defendant's motion for a protective order, filed February 21, 2008, defendant's unopposed motion to file a medical record under seal, also filed February 21, 2008, and plaintiff's motion for sanctions, filed March 17, 2008. Participating in the status conference with the undersigned were Mr. Edward J. Kinberg, for plaintiff, and Mr. James W. Poirier, for defendant. The court first reviewed the four motions and the key arguments presented either therein or in subsequent briefing. The court noted that precedential caselaw cited by defendant defines this court's review of default terminations, see, e.g., Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc), and that this de novo review does not normally require testimony from a contracting officer. In light of the caselaw cited by defendant, the court inquired whether plaintiff continues to seek the testimony that is the subject of its motion to compel, or whether plaintiff intends to withdraw its motion(s).

Case 1:05-cv-00551-LJB

Document 50

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff's counsel requested additional time to review defendant's authorities, and to consult with his client. Defendant did not oppose an enlargement of time for this purpose. The court agreed with the extension proposed, from April 24, 2008 to April 30, 2008. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for sanctions, if any, or plaintiff's notice withdrawing plaintiff's motion to compel and motion for sanctions, shall be FILED on or before April 30, 2008. The court defers ruling on any of the pending motions until plaintiff's filing has been received by the court.

/s/Lynn J. Bush LYNN J. BUSH Judge

2