Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00551-LJB

Document 48-2

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 1 of 3

No. 05-551C (Judge Bush)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS HM2 CORPORATION, d/b/a HM2 CONSTRUCTORS AND FABRICATORS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director JAMES W. POIRIER Attorney Department of Justice Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-0856 Facsimile: (202) 514-7969 Attorneys for Defendant April 10, 2008

Case 1:05-cv-00551-LJB

Document 48-2

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 2 of 3

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... ii DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............................................ 1 ARGUMENT....................................................... 2 I. The Termination Decision Is Subject To De Novo Review.................................... 2 There Is No Basis To Impose Sanctions............... 11

II.

CONCLUSION.................................................... 11

-i-

Case 1:05-cv-00551-LJB

Document 48-2

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 3 of 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Darwin Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1987)...................... PAGE(S)

4, 5, 6

Empire Energy Management Systems, Inc. v. Roche, 362 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 323 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................... McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................... McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 358 (1996)..........................

3, 9

2, 3, 9

5, 8, 9

5, 6, 7, 9

Schlesinger v. United States, 390 F.2d 702 (Ct. Cl. 1968).........................

passim

Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................

2

-ii-