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

Case 1:05-cv-00472-MCW

Document 26

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JUDITH A. MANSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-472C Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams

JOINT MOTION TO STAY THE CASE The United States, on behalf of both parties, and with the consent of plaintiff's counsel, respectfully requests a brief stay in these proceedings because the parties are presently involved in discussions to resolve this matter short of continued litigation. On August 1, 2006, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order establishing a schedule for this matter which culminates with a trial on February 12, 2007 in Washington, D.C. In that order, the Court also directed the parties to file a joint status report describing any progress the parties have made regarding settlement. On September 11, 2006, the parties notified the Court that they have had productive discussions in attempting to resolve this matter, and Ms. Mansfield's case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, without additional formal litigation. The parties also informed the Court that these discussions have lead the parties to narrow the issues of contention and that the parties believe that utilizing an Alternate Disputes Resolution ("ADR") method to resolve the remaining disputes in this case could be beneficial. Pursuant to the parties' joint request, on September 14, 2006, the Court granted the parties requests that the matter be assigned to an ADR judge. On November 14, 2006, the ADR judge scheduled a meeting with the parties for December 12, 2006.

Case 1:05-cv-00472-MCW

Document 26

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 2 of 4

The United States and Ms. Mansfield propose that the Court order a stay of this matter while the parties continue to pursue settlement discussions with the ADR judge. The parties believe that at the conclusion of ADR, they will be in a better position to inform the Court whether: 1) the parties have agreed to resolve this matter without additional litigation, 2) the parties would like more time to discuss settlement because the parties believe they will be able to resolve this matter short of additional litigation, or, 3) the parties do not believe they will be able to resolve this matter using ADR and will submit a proposed scheduling order establishing a new period of discovery. For the foregoing reasons, the United States and Ms. Mansfield respectfully request that the Court grant this joint motion to stay the case while ADR is in process. Respectfully submitted,

s/Bruce A. Fredrickson BRUCE A. FREDRICKSON 1775 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 659-8510 (202) 659-4082 (fax) Attorney for Plaintiff November 21, 2006

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/Todd M. Hughes TODD M. HUGHES Assistant Director

2

Case 1:05-cv-00472-MCW

Document 26

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 3 of 4

s/Douglas K. Mickle DOUGLAS K. MICKLE Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 307-0383 Fax: (202) 353-7988 OF COUNSEL: JULIA DOUD Assistant General Counsel Library of Congress Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendant November 21, 2006

3

Case 1:05-cv-00472-MCW

Document 26

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on November 21, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "JOINT MOTION TO STAY THE CASE" 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/Douglas K. Mickle Douglas K. Mickle