Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 55

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 08-133 C (Filed: April 7, 2008) ******************************************* GLOBAL COMPUTER ENTERPRISES, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant, * * and * * QSS GROUP, INC., * * Defendant-Intervenor. * ******************************************* ORDER On April 3, 2008, the parties filed a joint status report in which they stated their respective positions regarding further briefing in this case. Both defendant and defendantintervenor request an opportunity to file one memorandum each, not to exceed thirty (30) pages each, addressing each party's (1) opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction, and plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record; and (2) reply in support of the motions to dismiss and for judgment on the administrative record. To accommodate the obligations of defendant's counsel, the parties propose a May 2, 2008 deadline for defendant's and defendant-intervenor's memoranda. Plaintiff requests an opportunity to file one memorandum, not to exceed thirty (30) pages, as a reply in support of its cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, as well as its motions for a permanent injunction and to supplement the administrative record. The parties propose a May 19, 2008 deadline for plaintiff's memorandum. The parties represent that their proposed memoranda will address whether plaintiff has demonstrated that (1) the court possesses jurisdiction over the complaint; (2) plaintiff has succeeded on the merits; (3) plaintiff would suffer harm absent permanent injunctive relief; (4) the balance of harms favors permanent injunctive relief; and (5) the public interest favors permanent injunctive relief. The parties agree that no additional declarations or other evidence, other than declarations relating to the risks of harm to the parties, will be filed with their

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 55

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 2 of 2

memoranda. Following submission of their additional memoranda, the parties request oral argument. Additionally, the parties addressed the temporary restraining order ("TRO") issued by the court on March 31, 2008. Although the TRO is currently set to expire at midnight on April 9, 2008, the parties agree to an extension of the TRO "during any additional briefing period, from midnight, April 9, 2008, through the date on which the Court resolves GCE's motion for a permanent injunction." Both defendant and defendant-intervenor, however, reserve the right to move to amend the TRO pursuant to the court's rules. Plaintiff requests that the court issue a preliminary injunction effective midnight, April 9, 2008, pending a decision on the merits. On April 7, 2008, the court held a status conference with the parties in which it addressed the parties' proposed supplemental briefing schedule and set a date for additional oral argument. Accordingly, the parties shall adhere to the following schedule: 1. Defendant shall file a memorandum, not to exceed thirty pages, consolidating its oppositions and replies, as discussed above, by no later than May 2, 2008. Defendant-Intervenor shall file a memorandum, not to exceed thirty pages, consolidating its oppositions and replies, as discussed above, by no later than May 2, 2008. Plaintiff shall file a memorandum, not to exceed thirty pages, as a reply in support of its motions, as discussed above, by no later than May 19, 2008. The court will hear argument on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC.

2.

3.

4.

Finally, based upon the agreement of the parties, the TRO issued on March 31, 2008, shall remain in effect until the court rules upon the merits of plaintiff's motion for permanent injunctive relief. The court shall issue a separate order regarding the TRO in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge

-2-