Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00503-TCW

Document 28

Filed 01/17/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

HOSPITAL SERVICE ASS'N OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 05-503 T (Judge Wheeler)

___________________ JOINT MOTION TO SUSPEND PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS ____________________ The parties respectfully move the Court to suspend proceedings in this case, pending the disposition of a motion for summary judgment that defendant intends to file. In support of this motion, the parties state as follows: As discussed in Plaintiff's Motion to Partially Stay Discovery or in the Alternative to Amend the Revised Scheduling Order, filed September 8, 2006, defendant intends to file a dispositive motion for summary judgment in this case. The parties have completed all discovery necessary for defendant to establish the factual predicate to its arguments for summary judgment and now wish to avoid the expense of engaging in further fact discovery until it is known whether such effort will be necessary. Because defendant's motion, if granted, would dispose of all of the issues in this case, further fact discovery might become unnecessary. A suspension of pretrial proceedings at this time might therefore save the parties from spending significant resources on a needless exercise. On the other hand, a suspension of pretrial proceedings at this

-1-

Case 1:05-cv-00503-TCW

Document 28

Filed 01/17/2007

Page 2 of 3

time would not prejudice either party should the Court deny defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby necessitating the completion of fact discovery. Although defendant originally intended to file its motion for summary judgment within a few months of plaintiff's September 8, 2006, motion, preparation of the summary judgment motion has taken longer than anticipated. Specifically, because the issues in this case affect all Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations, they constitute a matter of some significance to the Government. Defendant's trial attorney has therefore had to coordinate defendant's summary judgment arguments with a number of Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service personnel, a process that has taken a substantial amount of time. Defendant expects that it will be able to file the motion by February 28, 2007. If the Court grants this motion and then denies defendant's motion for summary judgment, then the parties will submit a proposed revised pretrial schedule. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this motion.

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00503-TCW

Document 28

Filed 01/17/2007

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, /s Frederick H. Robinson FREDERICK H. ROBINSON MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005-5701 Phone: (202) 626-5800 Facsimile: (202) 628-0858 Counsel for Plaintiff Of Counsel: Clarence T. Kipps, Jr. Maria O. Jones Adam P. Feinberg MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED 655 Fifteen Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005-5701 Phone: (202) 626-5800 Facsimile: (202) 628-0858

/s Karen Servidea KAREN SERVIDEA Attorney of Record U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division Court of Federal Claims Section Post Office Box 26 Ben Franklin Post Office Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 616-3423 Counsel for Defendant EILEEN J. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section W.C. RAPP Senior Trial Attorney

January 17, 2007 Date

/s W.C. Rapp Of Counsel

-3-