APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED: November 3, 2025
CBCA 8401
NATIONAL RECOVERIES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Edward T. DeLisle, Andrés M. Vera, and Amaiya L. Johnson of Thompson Hine LLP,
Washington, DC; and Jamar T. King of Thompson Hine LLP, Miamisburg, OH, counsel for
Appellant.
Candice Jackson and Tim Rushenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Education, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, CHADWICK, and KANG.  
KANG, Board Judge.
This appeal concerns a contract awarded to National Recoveries, Inc. (NRI) by the
Department of Education (Education) for student loan debt collection services.  NRI filed a
motion seeking imposition of sanctions on Education based on its failure to meet deadlines
for mandatory filings.  We deny the motion.


CBCA 8401 2
Background
NRI filed this appeal on April 1, 2025.  The Board’s order of April 8, 2025, directed
NRI to file its complaint and Education to file the appeal file under Board Rule 4 (48 CFR
6101.4(a) (2024)) by May 8, 2025, and for Education to file its answer within thirty days of
the filing of the complaint, as required by the Board’s Rules.  The order also directed the
parties to confer and file a proposed schedule for milestones in the appeal including
discovery.  NRI filed its complaint, but Education did not file its Rule 4 appeal file.
On May 19, 2025, the Board issued an order directing Education to do the following
by May 23, 2025:  “[E]ither file (1) its Rule 4 file or (2) a request for an extension that
includes an explanation for why the filing has not been made and a specific date by which
the filing will be made.”
On May 22, 2025, the Board held a conference call with the parties to address a
separate appeal filed by NRI concerning a different contract with Education (CBCA 8017). 
During that call, counsel for Education—who had not entered a notice of appearance for
either appeal—advised with regard to CBCA 8401 that Education would comply with the
Board’s May 19, 2025, order by requesting an extension of time to submit its appeal file. 
Despite this representation, Education did not file a request for extension by the existing
May 23, 2025, due date.  Instead, on May 27, 2025, Education filed a request for an
extension to submit the appeal file until June 3, 2025.  On May 28, 2025, the Board granted
Education’s request for an extension to submit the appeal file.  Yet, Education did not submit
its appeal file by the extended deadline.
On June 12, 2025, the Board directed the parties to confirm their availability for a
conference call to discuss the schedule for the appeal on June 16, 2025.  Although counsel
for NRI confirmed availability, counsel for Education did not respond.
On July 1, 2025, Education entered notices of appearance of counsel, Candice Jackson
and Tim Rushenberg.  On July 2, 2025, the Board issued an order directing the parties to
confer and by July 11, 2025, file a joint proposed schedule submission of the appeal  file, the
answer to the complaint, and the remaining milestones set forth in the Board’s order of
April 8, 2025.
On July 11, 2025, the parties filed a joint proposed schedule for the appeal, which
provided for, among other things, Education to file its answer and the appeal file by July 18,
2025.  On July 14, 2025, the Board issued an order adopting the proposed schedule. 
Education did not file the appeal file or answer by the second extended deadline.

CBCA 8401 3
On August 29, 2025, NRI filed a motion seeking the following sanctions against
Education:  (1) deeming the allegations of NRI’s complaint admitted; (2) precluding
Education from producing evidence contrary to NRI’s allegations; (3) drawing all evidentiary
inferences in favor of NRI against Education; (4) granting NRI “unfettered access” to
Education’s electronic and non-electronic data storage systems so that NRI can “prepare the
Rule 4 File at [Education’s] expense”; and (5) other sanctions the Board deems appropriate. 
Memorandum in Support of Motion (Aug. 29, 2025) at 12-13.  NRI asserted that “[d]espite
several extensions and reset deadlines and stern warnings from the Board, [Education]
refuses to file an answer to the complaint or serve a Rule 4 File.”  Id. at 1.  NRI also
represented that, consistent with Rule 8(a), it had attempted to resolve the matter with
Education prior to filing the motion.  Id. at 5.
On September 3, the Board ordered Education to file its answer and appeal  file by
September 23, 2025, and also ordered Education to file any opposition to the motion for
sanctions by September 29, 2025.  Education complied with both deadlines.
Discussion
Board Rule 35(a) provides that “[a]ll parties and their representatives, attorneys, and
any expert or consultant retained by them or their attorneys shall obey directions and orders
of the Board and adhere to standards of conduct applicable to such parties and persons.”   48
CFR 6101.35(a).  Rule 35(b) provides that sanctions may be imposed “[i]f a party or its
representative, attorney, expert, or consultant . . . engages in misconduct affecting the Board,
its process, or its proceedings.”  Id. 6101.35(b).
We recognize that the motion was filed at a time when Education had repeatedly failed
to meet deadlines set by the Board’s Rules and orders issued by the Board for filing its appeal
file and answer.  Nonetheless, Education ultimately complied with the Board’s September 3,
2025, order and filed the appeal file and answer.
NRI’s request to provide access to Education’s records is moot in light of the
production of the appeal file.  See Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, CBCA 3300, et al., 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,806, at 175,118 (imposing sanctions on
respondent for abusive discovery practices but noting that the sanctions would be
unnecessary if respondent provided documents prior to the deadline for commencement of
the sanctions).  To the extent that any disputes arise concerning the documents filed, such
disputes will be handled in the normal course under the Board’s Rules.
The sanction of taking allegations as established based on the late filing of an answer
is a severe penalty that is “authorized only in extreme circumstances” involving “willfulness,

CBCA 8401 4
bad faith or fault.”  MLU Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 8002,
24-1 BCA ¶ 38,549, at 187,365 (quoting Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 921 F.2d
1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).  The record here does not show any evidence of the kind of
“extreme” behavior by Education that would support the imposition of the sanctions sought
by NRI in connection with the answer.1
In sum, we find no basis to impose sanctions.  Education is advised, however, that the
events that precipitated the motion may be considered if further failures to meet deadlines
prompt additional motions for sanctions.
Decision
The motion is denied.
    Jonathan L. Kang         
JONATHAN L.  KANG
Board Judge
We concur:
     Joseph  A. Vergilio             Kyle Chadwick                
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge Board Judge
1 We note that Education’s response to the motion did not explain its failure to
meet the filing deadlines; rather, the response merely argued that the motion was moot
because the filings were ultimately made.  During the May 22, 2025, conference call, counsel
for Education described challenges regarding staffing resources in its Office of the General
Counsel caused by reductions in force.  Apart from this general representation, Education has
not made any specific statements, much less offered any evidence for the record, that could
account for its multiple failures to meet deadlines set forth in the Board’s rules and orders.