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

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 39

Filed 08/07/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS MICHAEL W. STOVALL, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Electronic Filing No. 05-400C (Judge Allegra)

JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Rule 16 and Appendix A of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), on behalf of both parties, and with the concurrence of counsel for plaintiff, Michael W. Stovall, the United States respectfully submits the following preliminary status report in response to the questions set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix A. When necessary, Mr. Stovall and the United States will present their separate views on these subjects. a. Does the Court have jurisdiction over this action?

Plaintiff states that the Court possesses jurisdiction to consider and decide this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491. For the reasons stated in its motion to dismiss, which has been denied by the Court, the defendant does not believe that the Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain this action. b. Should this case be consolidated with any other case?

The parties agree that this case should not be consolidated with any other case. c. Should trial of liability and damages be bifurcated?

The parties agree that the trial of liability and damages should not be bifurcated.

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 39

Filed 08/07/2006

Page 2 of 5

d.

Should further proceedings be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal and the reasons therefore?

The parties agree that further proceedings in this case should not be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal. e. Will a remand or suspension be sought?

Neither of the parties will seek remand or suspension. f. Will additional parties be joined?

The parties agree that they will not join any additional parties. g. Does either party intend to file a dispositive motion pursuant to Rule 12(b), 12(c), or 56? And, if so, a schedule for the intended filing?

After discovery has been completed, the United States anticipates submitting a motion for summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56. h. 1. 2. 3. i. What are the relevant issues? Whether defendant breached the Resolution Agreement; What mitigation Mr. Stovall undertook for each alleged breach; and What damages Mr. Stovall suffered as a result of each alleged breach. What is the likelihood of settlement?

The United States is willing to engage in settlement discussions and will make every effort to resolve this case amicably. To facilitate settlement discussions, the parties are agreeable to utilizing an ADR method. Some discovery will be necessary, however, before the parties can realistically engage in settlement discussions, and the parties agree that any ADR methodology should be established at or near the conclusion of the discovery period.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 39

Filed 08/07/2006

Page 3 of 5

j.

Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial?

If dispositive motions are not filed, and the matter cannot be resolved through settlement, trial will be necessary. If dispositive motions are filed, and a trial is necessary to fully decide this case, the United States proposes that the trial be held four to six months after the Court shall have ruled on such motions. The parties expect that a trial would last approximately one week. The parties do not request expedited trial scheduling. The parties request that the trial be conducted in Washington, DC. k. Are there special issues regarding electronic case management needs?

The parties have no special issues regarding electronic case management needs. l. Is there other information of which the Court should be aware at this time?

There is no additional information of which the Court should be aware at this time. m. What is the proposed discovery plan?

The parties intend to conduct simultaneous discovery through interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for production of documents, and/or depositions. The parties propose the following discovery schedule: Answer to Complaint Exchange of Initial Disclosures Close of Fact Discovery Plaintiff's Expert Report Due (if any) Defendant's Expert Report Due Deadline for Expert Depositions August 31, 2006 September 31, 2006 March 31, 2007 June 1, 2007 July 20, 2007 August 31, 2007

3

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 39

Filed 08/07/2006

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/ Deborah A. Bynum DEBORAH A. BYNUM Assistant Director

s/James W. Myart, Jr. JAMES W. MYART, JR. James W. Myart, Jr., P.C. The Preston House 1104 Denver Boulevard Suite 300 San Antonio, Texas 78210 Tel. (210) 533-9461 Fax. (210) 533-4815

s/ Devin A. Wolak DEVIN A. WOLAK Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 616-0170 Fax (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

Attorney for Plaintiff August 7, 2006

4

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 39

Filed 08/07/2006

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on August 7, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ Devin A. Wolak DEVIN A. WOLAK