Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Bid Protest ) GLOBAL COMPUTER ENTERPRISES, ) INC. ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 08-133C (Judge Sweeney)

PLAINTIFF'S CONSENT MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 52.1(b) Plaintiff Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. ("GCE") respectfully moves that the Court in this case dispense with the requirements of COFC Rule 52.1(b). The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1. On March 6, 2008, GCE filed its Complaint in this case, along with a motion for

preliminary injunction and application for temporary restraining order and a memorandum in support of that motion. [Dkt. No. 1]. 2. [Dkt. No. 25]. 3. On March 17, 2008, the United States and Intervenor-Defendant QSS Group, Inc. On March 14, 2008, the Defendant United States filed its administrative record.

("QSS") each filed oppositions to GCE's motion. [Dkt. No.s 26 and 28]. In addition, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment upon the Administrative Record. [Dkt. No. 26]. QSS also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 2 of 6

Jurisdiction, and Alternatively, Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. [Dkt. No. 28]. While neither the United States nor QSS filed a separate document designated as a Rule 52.1(b) Statement of Facts, both parties' pleadings did, consistent with Rule 52.1(b), include a statement of facts providing the same content. 4. Pursuant to this Court's Orders dated March 7, 2008 [Dkt. No. 16] and March 19,

2008 [Dkt. No 32], GCE intends on March 24 to file a single, consolidated memorandum containing a reply in support of GCE's motion for preliminary injunction and application for temporary restraining order, in opposition to the Government's and QSS's motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the administrative record, and in support of GCE's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. 5. GCE also intends on March 24 to file a cross-motion for judgment on the

administrative record, and a motion to supplement the record to include those record materials provided by GCE in its March 6 filings and its March 24 filings. 6. The facts that may be pertinent to the Court's resolution of the Defendant and

Defendant-Intervenors' motions for judgment on the administrative record and resolution of GCE's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record are: (i) those facts set forth in GCE's March 6 memorandum1; (ii) those facts set forth in the Defendants' March 17 opposition memoranda and motions for judgment on the administrative record; (iii) those facts set forth in GCE's forthcoming March 24 memorandum; and (iv) any other fact in the administrative record that the Court deems pertinent.

GCE in its March 6 memorandum provided citations to both the exhibit and page number of the accompanying Appendix, which was filed eight days before there was a proposed administrative record in this case. GCE intends to move that the contents of the Appendix be included in the administrative record.

1

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 3 of 6

7.

COFC Rule 52.1(b) provides that: "The parties may move for partial or other

judgment on the administrative record filed with the court. Absent an order by the court setting a different procedure, in any such motion or supporting memorandum, the moving or crossmoving party shall include a Statement of Facts that draws upon and cites to the portions of the administrative record that bear on the issues presented to the court. The opposing party shall include in any response a Counter-Statement of Facts that similarly draws upon and cites to the administrative record." 8. Given the compressed briefing and hearing schedule in this case, it would be more

efficient for the Court and the parties if the parties were not required to file additional, separate sections designated as a Rule 52.1(b) statement of facts or counter-statements of facts. In GCE's case, such documents would simply repeat facts set forth in GCE's March 6 and March 24 memoranda so as to comply with COFC Rule 52.1(b). Such documents would not marginally assist the Court's review in this expedited proceeding. 9. Accordingly, GCE moves under COFC Rule 52.1(b) that the Court order that [i]

the parties' collective procedural requirements under COFC Rule 52.1(b) shall be deemed satisfied by the facts provided in GCE's March 6, 2008 memorandum [Dkt. No. 1], GCE's March 24, 2008 memorandum, and the Government's and QSS's March 17, 2008 motions and memoranda [Dkt. No.s 26 and 28]; and [ii] nothing in the Court's Order shall prejudice any party's ability to challenge any other party's proposals concerning the content of the administrative record or the admissibility, relevance, or proper weight to be accorded to any portion of the factual record in this case, nor shall it mean that any party's facts shall be deemed admitted due to any other party not filing a separate counter-statement of facts or otherwise failing to object. -3-

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 4 of 6

10.

The United States and QSS each consent to this motion. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Jonathan J. Frankel Jonathan J. Frankel Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 663-6113 (tel.) (202) 663-6363 (fax) Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Global Computer Enterprises, Inc.

Of Counsel John P. Janecek Ariel B. Waldman Timothy R. Schnabel Sara K. Kasper Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 663-6000 (tel.) (202) 663-6363 (fax)

Dated: March 20, 2008

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 5 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Bid Protest ) GLOBAL COMPUTER ENTERPRISES, ) INC. ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 08-133C ) (Judge Sweeney) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. ("GCE")'s Consent Motion For Relief From Certain Requirements Under COFC Rule 52.1(b), it is this __ day of March, 2008, ORDERED, that the parties' procedural requirements under Rule 52.1(b) shall be deemed satisfied by the facts provided in GCE's March 6, 2008 memorandum [Dkt. No. 1], GCE's March 24, 2008 memorandum, and the Government's and QSS's March 17, 2008 motions and memoranda [Dkt. No.s 26 and 28]; and it is hereby: ORDERED, that nothing in the Court's Order shall prejudice any party's ability to challenge any other party's proposals concerning the content of the administrative record or the admissibility, relevance, or proper weight to be accorded to any portion of the factual record in this case, nor shall it mean that any party's facts shall be deemed admitted due to any other party's not filing a separate counter-statement of facts or otherwise failing to object.

The Honorable Margaret M. Sweeney

Case 1:08-cv-00133-MMS

Document 35

Filed 03/20/2008

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 20th day of March, 2008, a copy of the foregoing was filed through the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, and was therefore served on counsel of record pursuant to Court of Federal Claims Rules Appendix E, Paragraph 12(c). /s/ Jonathan J. Frankel Jonathan J. Frankel Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 663-6113 (tel.) (202) 663-6363 (fax) Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. Dated: March 20, 2008