Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA

Document 99

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 1 of 2

In The United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 03-289C (Filed: August 14, 2006) __________ UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. __________ ORDER ___________ On August 9, 2006, defendant filed its opposition to plaintiff's discovery motion. This document identifies "an experienced professional employee of the Department of Justice" who failed to conduct "a de novo search, as instructed, and who made representations upon which [counsel for defendant], in turn, relied in making representations to the Court and plaintiff." Accordingly, on or before August 18, 2006, defendant shall file: 1. An affidavit by counsel for defendant detailing the conversations that he had with the "Justice Department professional." The affidavit shall, in particular, detail: a. the nature of the instructions given by counsel to the "Justice Department professional;" whether the "Justice Department professional" was aware that the representations he or she made were going to be conveyed to the Court; the identity of the government attorney referred to in Lynn Nelson's affidavit, who stated that the William Beaumont Army Medical Center's United Medical records were "useless;" and the identity of the government attorney referred to in Debra Thompson's affidavit, who collected boxes from the Brooke Army Medical Center in February 2005.

b.

c.

d.

Case 1:03-cv-00289-FMA

Document 99

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 2 of 2

2.

An affidavit by the aforementioned unnamed "Justice Department professional" detailing the conversations that he or she had with counsel for defendant regarding his or her search for documents. The affidavit shall, in particular, detail the nature of the instructions given by counsel to the "Justice Department professional," and whether the "Justice Department professional" was aware that the representations he or she made were going to be conveyed to the Court. Copies of any general notices sent, either in paper or electronic form, by defendant to all affected MTFs requesting or relating to the preservation of relevant documents. Privileged material may be redacted from these documents. Communications or conversations with individual MTFs are not required at this time.

3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Francis M. Allegra Francis M. Allegra Judge

-2-