Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00636-LB

Document 12

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS METRICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 04-636C (Judge Block)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO ENLARGE THE FACT DISCOVERY PERIOD; AND FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant respectfully renews its request that this Court enter a Protective Order prohibiting the disclosure of secret, confidential, and other proprietary information in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the attached proposed Protective Order. Plaintiff's counsel

has reviewed the proposed protective order and does not oppose this motion. The Court denied the Government's previous motion because it concluded that the Government had not provided an adequate description of the information to be protected, or the reason the Court should issue the protective order. The Court stated that

the Government could refile the motion "with the above consideration in mind." Plaintiff has served document requests upon the Government that require the Government to produce documents that contain procurement sensitive information. For example, plaintiff has

Case 1:04-cv-00636-LB

Document 12

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 2 of 5

requested invoices and documentation of time charges on several contracts. These documents contain procurement-sensitive

information, such as the hourly rate paid the individuals working on these contracts. Plaintiff has also requested documents exchanged between certain individuals, including Government employees who are involved in awarding and administering various Government contracts. These documents include procurement-sensitive

information, including internal Government discussions with regard to the Government's requirements with regard to, and various contractor's performance of, various Government contracts. A protective order is necessary to maintain the

confidentiality of the information contained in these documents. The proposed protective order conforms to the standard protective order that appears as Form 8 in the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (May 1, 2002), with one exception. The proposed protective order allows the party

producing protected material to produce the documents in electronic form on a compact disk, and mark the outside of the compact disk with a notice that it contains protected material, rather than marking each electronic document on the compact disk. This approach will facilitate prompt and efficient production of the documents at issue, because there are many electronic documents that are responsive to plaintiff's document requests

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-00636-LB

Document 12

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 3 of 5

and that may contain protected material. Defendant also requests that the fact discovery period be enlarged by 57 days, to and until May 27, 2005. The fact

discovery period is presently due to close on March 31, 2005. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

The parties have each served interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. Defendant has responded to

plaintiff's interrogatories and has produced many of the documents requested by plaintiff, and will be able to produce the remainder of the requested documents shortly after entry of the protective order. Plaintiff has responded to defendant's The parties have yet to

interrogatories and document requests. conduct any depositions, however.

The 57 days requested is

necessary for defendant to produce the remaining documents requested by plaintiff, and for the parties to conduct fact depositions. Finally, defendant requests expedited consideration of this motion because it cannot complete responding to plaintiff's document requests until the protective order is in place, and fact discovery in this case is due to close in the near future. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue the proposed Protective Order and enlarge

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-00636-LB

Document 12

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 4 of 5

the fact discovery period by 57 days. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director /s Brian M. Simkin BRIAN M. SIMKIN Assistant Director /s Thomas D. Dinackus THOMAS D. DINACKUS Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tele: (202) 307-6289 Fax: (202) 514-7969 Attorneys for Defendant OF COUNSEL: MAJ ANISSA N. PAREKH U.S. Army Legal Services Agency March 15, 2005

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-00636-LB

Document 12

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 5 of 5

NOTICE OF FILING I hereby certify that on March 15, 2005, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO ENLARGE THE FACT DISCOVERY PERIOD; AND FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION" and attached draft "PROTECTIVE ORDER" with "ATTACHMENT A" and "ATTACHMENT B" 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. may access this filing through the Court's system. Parties

/s Thomas D. Dinackus