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

Case 1:04-cv-00718-ECH

Document 9

Filed 07/01/2004

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CW GOVERNMENT TRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) No. 04-718C ) (Judge Hewitt) ) ) )

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY Defendant submits this response in opposition to plaintiff's June 28, 2004 Motion For Early Discovery. Plaintiff, CW

Government Travel, Inc. ("CW"), asserts that it requires early discovery because "speedy resolution of this matter is in the best interests of all parties." with all litigation. That is the case and the goal

However, CW has not come forward with any

compelling reasons documenting the need for early discovery. There are none. In fact, forcing the Government to respond to

burdensome discovery requests before it even completes its analysis of CW's complaint, serves only to delay the Government's ability to respond to CW's complaint. CW has existing contracts with the United States and there is no indication that these contracts are in any immediate jeopardy. The fact that the Government - at some point in the

distant future - may not extend an option upon one of CW's contracts, does not require that this Court force the parties into premature discovery. As we explained in our motion for an

Case 1:04-cv-00718-ECH

Document 9

Filed 07/01/2004

Page 2 of 4

enlargement to respond to CW's complaint, we are exploring the possibility that this Court may not possess jurisdiction to entertain CW's complaint. Any discovery prior to the

Government's response to CW's complaint is unfounded. CW also posits that, the fact the Army's contracting activity is relocating gives it cause to request early discovery. There is simply no support for this statement. The fact that the

office is relocating does not suggest the need for discovery prior to the time for discovery contemplated by the rules of this Court. CW additionally complains that it "has attempted,

unsuccessfully, to work with the Government to expedite this matter." It cites to, and attaches, a letter it wrote to As Government counsel

Government counsel on June 11, 2004.

explained to plaintiff's counsel - she did not receive this letter until June 17, 2004. Plaintiff's counsel never telephoned

defendant's counsel to express his desire to proceed expeditiously. If this case actually requires such expeditious

handling, surely plaintiff's counsel could have attempted to contact defendant's counsel earlier - and by more immediate means - than by mail. Early discovery in this case is not justified. When, and

if, discovery is needed in this case, defendant will fully comply with the discovery rules of this Court. Accordingly, defendant

2

Case 1:04-cv-00718-ECH

Document 9

Filed 07/01/2004

Page 3 of 4

respectfully requests that this Court deny CW's motion for early discovery. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/James M. Kinsella by Mark A. Melnick JAMES M. KINSELLA Deputy Director

s/Lisa B. Donis LISA B. DONIS Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7561 Attorneys for Defendant JULY 1, 2004

3

Case 1:04-cv-00718-ECH

Document 9

Filed 07/01/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on July 1, 2004, a copy of foregoing "Defendant's Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Permit Early Discovery," 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. access this filing through the Court's system. Parties may

s/Lisa B. Donis LISA B. DONIS

4