## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 3 -4 2 6 C (Fi l edNo v em

b er 1 0 , 2 0 1 5 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GROOM S & COM PANY CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Pla i n t i f f ,

v
. THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d a n t

. *

* * * * * * * * * * M o t i on t o Di s m i s s fo r Fai l u re t o Pro s ecu t e; RCFC 4 1 (b ); Di s m is sal No tOrd eredat Th i s Ti m e.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
Befo re t h e co u rti s d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s fo r fai lu re t o p ro s ecu t e b ro u gh t p u rs u an t t o Ru l e 4 1 (b ) o f t h e Ru l es o f th e Un i t edSt at es Co urto f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC). Al th o u g h d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n co n tai n s i rrefu t ab le ev id en ce t h at p l ai n t i ff h as fai l edt o ad equ at el y p ro s ecu t e i t s cl ai m b efo re th is co u rt , p l ai n t i ff s h al l b e affo rd ed a fi n al o p p o rtu n i ty t o co m p l y wi th th is co u rt ’ s o rd ers an dt o av o idd i s m i s s al u n d er t h i s co urt ’ s ru l es . Fo r t h i s reas o n , d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n s h al l b e d en i ed . Th e co u rtn o t es , h o wev er, th ati n l i g h t o f t h e p at t ern o f d i l at o ry co n du ct o n th e p arto f p l ai n t i ff d es cri b edh erei n , th i s o rd er s erv es as p lai n t i ff’ s fi nal w arn i n g t h atfai l u re t o co m p l y wi th th is co u rt ’ s o rd ers an d/ o r wi th p l ai n t i ff’ s d i s co v ery o b li gat i o n s s h al l co ns t i tut e s u ffi ci en t g ro u n ds fo r t h e co u rt , wi th o u t fu rt her n o t i ce t o p l ai nt i ff, t o en t er an o rd er d i s m i s s i n g th i s cas e p u rs uan t t o RCFC 4 1 (b ).BACKGROUND 1

Th e co m p l ai n ti n th e s ub

jectm at ter was fi l edo n J un e 2 7 , 2 0 1 3. 2 Fo u r co u nt s are p res en t edi n th e co m p l ai n t , al l rel at edt o a co n st ru ct i o n p ro ject p erfo rm edb y

p l ai n t i ff fo r t he Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f Lab o r i n Io wa. Aft er a n u m b er o f d i s p u t es aro s e, a Req u es tfo r Equ i t ab le Ad ju s t m en t(REA) was cert i fi ed b y p l ai n t iff an dp res en t edt o th e co n tract i n g o ffi cer o n J an u ary 1 0 , 2 01 3

. Th e m o net ary v al u e o f t h e cl ai m

en co m p as s ed i n th e REA i s as s ert edt o b e $ 2 ,7 9 8 ,3 8 2 .7 7 – th e s am e am o u n tth atp lai n t i ff s eek s i n thi s s u i t

. Defen d an t ’ s an s wer, fi l edo n Oct ob er 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 , i n cl u d es the affi rm at i v e d efen s e o f acco rd an d s at i s fact i o n wh i ch as s ert s th ata b il at eral co n tract m o di fi cat i o n b ars a p o rt i o n o f p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m . Th e p art i es were i nv i t edt o p art i ci p at e i n Al t ern at iv e Di s p u t e Res o l u t i on (ADR) b utres o l v edt o d o s o o n l y aft er t h e co m

p let i o n o f “ atl eas ts o m e d i sco v ery .” Ord er o f No v em ber 4 , 2 0 1 3 . A J o i n tPrel i m i narySt atu s Rep o rt(J PSR), t im el y fi ledo n Decem

b er 1 6, 2 0 1 3 , s et fo rt h a p ro po s edd i s co v ery s ch edu l e. Th ere was n o i nd i cat i o n i n t h e J PSR t h at p l ai n t i ff faced an y

p art i cu l ar ch al l en g es i n p ro s ecu t i n g th i s s u i to r t hatth e p ro p os eds ch edu l e was i m p ract i cal

. OnJ an u ary

2 , 2 0 1 4 th e co u rtad op t ed th e p art i es ’ p ro po s edd i s co v ery s ch edu l e, i ncl u d in g the fo l l o wi n g d ead l i n es : (1 ) I ni ti a l Di s cl o s ures , ex ch an g edo n o r b efo re J a nua ry 3 0 , 2 01 4 ; (2 ) Fa ct Di s co v ery , co m pl et edn o l at er t h an Octo ber 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 ; (3 ) Pl a i nti ff’s Des i g na ti o n o f Ex perts a nd Serv i ce o f Ex pert Repo rts , b y Decem ber 1 6, 2 0 1 4 ; (4 ) Defenda nt’s Des i g na ti o n o f Ex perts a nd Serv i ce o f Ex pert Repo rts , b y Februa ry 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 ;

1 / The facts recited here are undisputed.

2 / The complaint is unpag inated in violation of RCF C 5.5(c)(6).
2(5 ) Serv ice o f Pl a i nti ff’s Res po ns e Repo rt(s ) , b y Apri l 1 6 , 2 01 5 ;

(6 ) Serv ice o f Defenda nt’s Repl y Repo rt(s ) b y Ma y 1 9 , 2 0 1 5 ; (7 ) Ex pert Depo s i ti o ns , fro m Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 - J une 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 ; an d (8 ) J oi nt Sta tus Repo rt , n o l at er t h an Jul y 1 6, 2 0 15

. Prel im i n ary

Sch edu l in g Ord er o f J an u ary 2 , 2 0 1 4.
Th e p art i es m

u tu al l y ag reedt o d el ay

th e ex ch an g e o f i n i ti al d is cl o s u res u nt i l Feb ru ary 1 1 , 2 0 1 4 . Def.’ s Ap p . at3 -4 . Defen d an t m etth atd ead l in e, p l ai n t i ff d id n o t

. Id

. at6 . Fu rt h er, as n o t edb y d efen d an ti n a l et t er d at ed Feb ru ary 2 0, 2 0 1 4 , p l ai n t i ff’ s i n i t i al d i s cl o s ures d i dn o tap p ear t o co m p l y wi th RCFC 2 6 (a)(1 )(A)(i ii ) reg ard i n g th e acco u n t i n g b ack -up fo r p l ai n t i ff’ s co m p u t at io n o f d am ag es
. Id

. at 7 -8 . No thi n g i n th e reco rdb efo re t h e co u rts h o ws th at p l ai n t i ff h as ever co m p l i ed wi th RCFC 2 6 (a)(1 )(A)(i i i ) o r t h i s co u rt ’ s Prel i m i n ary Sch edu li n g Ord er o f J an u ary 2 , 2 0 1 4 wh i ch s p eci fi cal l y ci t es th i s ru le. Pl ai n t i ff h as ap p aren t l y fai l edt o p ro v id e i n ap p ro x i m at el y two y ears (Decem

b er 2 0 1 3 th ro u g h No v em b er 2 0 1 5 ) wh atp l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el ag reedt o p ro v i d e i n ap p ro x im at el y two m o n th s (Decem b er 2 0 1 3 th ro u g h J an uary2 0 1 4 ).
OnFeb ru ary 2 0 , 2 0 1 4, d efen d an tu rg edp lai n t i ff t o co rrect th e d efi ci en cy i n p l ai n t i ff’ s i n i t i al d i s cl o s ures o n o r b efo re M arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 . Def.’ s Ap p . at8

. Wh en n o res p o n s e fro m

p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el was recei v ed , d efen d an ts erv ed d i s co v ery req u es t s upo n p l ai n t i ff o n M arch 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 . Th es e fo rm al req u es t s i n cl u d edd o cu m en tp ro du ct i o n req u es t s an di n t erro g at ori es
. Id

. at2 7 -2 9 , 3 3 -3 4

. Pl ai n t i ff d i dn o t p ro v i d e an y d o cu m en t s o r an s wers t o i n t erro g at o ri es wi th i n th i rt y d ay s , as req u es t ed

. 3
In s t ead , th e p art i es h el d a t el ep ho n e co n feren ce o n M ay 1 5, 2 0 14 t o d i s cu s s d efen d an t ’ s o u t s t an d i n g d i s co v ery req u es t s . Def.’ s M o t . at2 -3 . Pl ai nt i ff’ s co u ns el p ro m i s eddu ri ng th is cal l t o p ro v i d e m o re acco u n t i ng d at a, b utweek s wen t

3 / There is no indication in the record that plaintiff has ever substantively

responded to this requested discovery , or, for that matter, to supplemental discovery requests served on July 24, 2014. 3b y

wi th n o act i o n fro m

p l ai n t i ff. Id

. at3 . OnJ u n e 1 3 , 2 0 1 4 , d efen d an ti n qu i redas t o wh enp l ai n ti ff wo u ld b e m eet i n g i t s d i s co v ery o b l i g at i o n s . Def.’ s Ap p. at1 5

. OnJ u n e 2 4 , 2 01 4 , p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el p ro v i d edad d i t io n al acco u nt i n g i n fo rm at i o n wh i ch d efen dan tch aract eri zes as “ wo efu l l y i nad equ at e.” Def.’ s M o t . at3

. Ina J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 4 em ai l to p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el , d efen d an t ’ s co u n s el p ro v i d ed , i n p ai n s t ak i n g d et ai l, h is an al y s i s o f t h e s h o rt co m i n g s i n p l ai n t i ff’ s acco u n t i ng d at a rel at ed t o i ts co m

p u t at i o n o f d am ag es . Def.’ s Ap p . at2 0 -2 1 . Th i s l et t er n o t ed , t o o , th atth e co u rt ’ s d i s co v ery s ch edu l e was b eco m i n g u nreal i s t i c du e t o th e d el ay s i n o b t ai n i n g b as ic i n fo rm at i o n fro m p l ai n t i ff. Id

. at2 1

. OnJ u ly 2 4 , 2 0 14 , th e g o v ern m en ts erv edren ewedd i s co v ery req u es t s up o n p l ai n t i ff wh i ch i ncl u d edn ew t o p i cs tri g g eredb y the acco u n t i ng i n fo rm at i o n p ro v id edb y

p lai n t i ff o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 4

. Def.’ s Ap p . at 2 4 -3 9 . Th ere i s n o ev i d en ce t h atp l ai n ti ff ever res p o n d edt o t h es e d o cu m en t p ro du ct i o n req u es t s o r i n t erro g at o ri es . OnOct o b er 7 , 2 0 1 4 the p art i es d i s cu s s eds et t l em en tb y t el ep h o n e. Id

. at4 4 . On e d ay

b efo re fact d i s co verywas du e t o cl o s e, t h e p art i es req u es t eda s t ay of p ro ceed i n g s fo r n i n ety d ay s s o th ats et t lem en tco u l db e p u rs u edan d ack n owl ed gedth atd i s co v ery h ad“ o n l y

ju s t b eg u n.” J t . M o t . t o St ay o f Oct o b er 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 . Dead li n es were s u s p en d edan da jo i n ts t atus rep o rtreg ard i n g s et t l em en t n eg ot i at i on s was req u i redt o b e fi l edb y J an u ary 2 6, 2 0 1 5

. See Ord er o f Oct o b er 2 9 , 2 0 1 4

. Defen d an tal leg es , an dp l ai n t i ff d o es n o trefu t e, t h ats et t l em en tn eg ot i at i o n s were s tym i edb y

p l ai nt i ff’ s fai l u re t o p res en ta s et tl em en to ffer co n t ai ni n g th e s up p ort i n g i n fo rm at i o n req u es t ed b y th e g o v ern m en t . Defen d an t ’ s co u n s el , M r. Do u g l as Ho ffm an , rep eat ed l y as k edfo r a s u ffi ci en t ly -s up p o rt eds et t lem en to ffer fro m p l ai n t i ff b u tn on e was fo rt h co m in g . M r. Ho ffm an ’ s em ai l s o f No v em b er 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 , J an u ary

2 2, 2 0 1 5 an dJ an u ary

2 3 , 2 01 5 ev en tual l y

p ro du ceda req ues tfro m p l ai n t i ff fo r ad d i t i o nal t im e t o p rep are a s et t l em en to ffer. Def.’ s Ap p . at4 1 -4 4

. Bas edo n p l ai nt iff’ s p ro p o s eds ch edu l e fo r s et t l em en tn eg ot i at i o n s , wh i ch wo u l d n o tev en b eg in u n ti l aft er t h e s t atu s rep o rtd ead l i n e s et b y th e co u rt , th e p art i es m o vedfo r a s ix ty -d ay

ex t en s i o n o f t h e n i n et y -d ay s t ay o n th e d ay

th e s t atu s rep o rt was due. S

ee J t

. M ot . o f J an u ary

2 6 , 2 01 5

. Th e p art i es ’ req u es tfo r an ad d i t i o n al s i x ty -d ay s t ay n o t edth e d el ay en co un t eredi n try i n g t o o b t ai n a s uffi ci en t l y -s up p o rt eds et t l em en t p ro p o sal fro m p l ai n t i ff, an d s peci fi cal l y s etFeb ru ary

1 2, 2 0 1 5 as th e ag reed -up on d ead l i n e fo r

4p l ai n t i ff’ s s et t lem en tp ro p o s al , am o n g o th er d ead l in es
. Id

. Th i s p ro p o sed

d ead li n e o ri gi n at edwi th p l ai n ti ff, n o td efen d an t

. Def.’ s Ap p . at4 2 . Th e co u rt g ran t edth e s ix ty -d ay s tay , n o t edth e d ead l i ne fo r p l ai n t i ff’ s s et t l em en tp ro p o s al as wel l as o th er d ead l in es , an ds eta n ew d ead l i n e o f M arch 2 7 , 2 0 1 5 fo r a s t atu s rep o rt

. S ee Ord er o f J an u ary 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 . Pl ai nt i ff’ s s et t l em en tp ro p o sal , due Feb ru ary 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 , was d el iv eredo v er a m o n th l at e, o n M arch 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 , d es p i t e g o v ern m en tco u n s el ’ s rem i n ders an ds co l d i n g
. 4 Def.’ s Ap p . at4 5-4 7 . No to n l y was th e s et t l em en t s ch edu l e d i srup t ed(an d n o w v i rtu al l y i m p o s s i b l e t o co m

p l et e du ri n g th e s t ay

p eri o d), d efen d an tco n s i dered p l ai n t i ff’ s s et tl em en tp ro p os al d efi ci en t b ecau se i t s uffered fro m th e s am e d efect s p l ag u i n g p l ai n t i ff’ s p rev i o u s co m p u t at i o n o f d am ag es – th ere was i n s u ffi ci en ts up p o rt in g d ocu m en t at io n t o p erm i tan an al y si s o f th e p ro p o s al b y th e g ov ern m en t . Def.’ s M ot . at4

. OnM arch 1 9 , 2 0 1 5 , M arch 2 0 , 2 0 1 5 , M arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 5 , an dM arch 2 7, 2 0 1 5 , M r. Ho ffm an at t em

p tedt o co n tactp l ai n t i ff’ s co u n sel reg ard in g th e s et t l em en t i m p as s e cau s edb y

p lai n t i ff’ s i nad equ at e s et t l em en tp ro p o s al d o cu m en t at i o n an d/o r t h e n eedt o p ro po s e a rev i s eds ch edu le fo r d i s co v ery act i v i ti es t o the co u rt

. M o t . fo r Ex t en s i o n o f Ti m e o f M arch 2 7 , 2 0 1 5 . No res p o n s e fro m p l ai n t i ff was recei v ed . OnM arch 2 7, 2 0 1 5 , M r. Ho ffm an req u es t eda few m o re d ay s s o th ata jo i n t st atu s rep o rtco ul db e p rep ared ; th e co urtg ran t edth i s en l arg em en t req u es t

. Th e p art i es were o rd eredt o co n fer an dfi l e a jo in t s tatu s rep o rto n Ap ri l 9 , 2 0 1 5. Ord er o f M arch 3 0 , 2 0 15

. Defen d an tat tem

p t edt o co m

m u n i cat e wi th p l ai n t i ff’ s co un s el b efo re t h i s d ead li n e b u trecei v edn o res p o n s e. Def.’ s M ot . at5 . Inan at t em p tt o co m pl y wi t h th e co u rt ’ s j o i n t

s t atu s rep o rt o rd er, o n Ap ri l 9 , 2 0 1 5 d efen d an tfi l ed a u n i la t er a l s t atu s rep o rtan dp ro po s edan up d at edd i s co v ery s ch edu l e. Th e co u rt ’ s n ex to rd er n o t edth atp l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el h adfai l edt o co m m u n i cat e wi th M r. Ho ffm an as req u i redb y

th i s co urt ’ s o rd ers : Th i s cas e h as b een s t ay ed s in ce Oct o b er 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 i n o rd er t o faci l i t at e t h e p art i es ’ s et t l em en tn eg o t i at io n s. Th e m o strecen ti np u tfro m p l ai n t i ff reg ard i n g th e s t atu s

4 / Althoug h defendant redacted its ex h ibit of plaintiff’s settlement proposal to remove confidential settlement information, plaintiff improperly did not. Compare Def.’s App. at 45, with Pl.’s Resp. at 7-8, and Pl.’s App. at 19-20.
5o f s et t l em en tn eg o t i at io n s was p ro v i d edi n a s t atu s rep o rt fi l edJ an u ary

2 6 , 2 0 1 5 . Pl ai n ti ff h as an o b l i g at i o n t o co m p l y wi th t h e co u rt ’ s o rd ers an dt o p art i ci pat e i n reco m m en d at i o ns t o th e co u rtreg ard i n g fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s
. Ord er o f Ap ri l 1 3, 2 0 1 5 . Th e co u rtth erefo re p l aced th e o n us o f fi l i ng th e n ex t s t atu s rep o rt , du e Ap ri l 2 3 , 2 0 15 , o n p l ai n ti ff, n o td efen d an t

. Id

. Pl ai n t i ff was al s o o rd eredt o co n fer wi th d efen d an t ’ s co u n s el

. Id

. Pl ai n t i ff’ s co u ns el ap p aren t l y i g n oredev ery

d i rect i v e o f th e co urt ’ s o rd er. Th ere i s n o reco rdo f an y co n t actb et ween p l ai n t i ff an dd efen d an tb efo re Ap ri l 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 . No th i n g was fi l ed by p l ai n t i ff o n o r b efo re Ap ri l 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 . Al th o u g h p l ai n t i ff ev en tual l y

referen ceda “ s t al em at e” i n s et t l em en tn eg o t i at i o n s wh i ch o ccu rredo n Ap ri l 2 9 , 2 0 1 5 , Pl .’ s St atu s Rep o rto f M ay 2 7, 2 0 15 , th i s d at e i s o u t s i d e t h e t i m e-fram e s etb y th e co u rt . OnM ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 , wi th n o s ig n o f co m p l ian ce wi th the co u rt ’ s o rd er o f Ap ri l 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 , th e co u rti s s u eda Sh o w Cau se Ord er ci t i n g RCFC 4 1 (b ) i n fo rm i n g p l ai n t i ff t h atd i s m i s s al fo r fai l u re t o p ro s ecu te was a p o s s i bl e co n seq u en ce o f p l ai n ti ff’ s fai l u re t o co m p l y wi th th e co u rt ’ s o rd ers . Pl ai n ti ff was affo rd edth ree week s , o r un t i l M ay 2 6 , 2 01 5 , t o ei t h er fi le i t s s tatu s rep o rto r a n o t i ce ex p l ai n i n g wh y d i s m is s al fo r fai l ure t o p ro s ecu t e s h o u ldn o to ccu r. Pl ai n t i ff m i s s edthi s d ead l i n e as wel l. On M ay 2 7 , 2 0 1 5, p l ai n t i ff fi l eda s t atu s rep o rtag reei n g t o the d i sco v ery s ch edu l e u n i l at eral l y

p ro p o s edb y

th e g o v ern m en ti n earl y

Ap ri l 2 0 1 5. Th e co u rtg ran t edp l ai nt iff’ s req u es tt o fi l e i t s s t atu s rep o rto u to f t i m e, b u twarn edp lai n t iff’ s co u n s el th at“ th is co u rtwi l l h av e v ery l i t t l e t o l eran ce fo r an y s uch b eh av i o r g o i n g fo rward .” Ord er o f M ay 2 9 , 2 0 1 5 . Th e co u rtal s o refu s edt o accep tp l ai n t i ff’ s i l l o g i cal acq u i es cen ce t o a s ch edu l e p ro p os eds ev eral week s earl i er b y d efen d an t, b ecau se atth atp o i n tth e p ro p os eds ch edu l e i n cl u d edex p i redd ead l i n es fo r act i v i t ies s t il l t o b e co m p l et ed

. Th e p art i es were o rd eredt o ag ree t o a s ch edu l e wi th v iab l e d ead l i n es an dt o fi l e a jo i n t st atu s rep o rtb y J un e 5 , 2 01 5

. Id

. Th e n ew d i s co v ery

s ch edu l e p ro p os edb y th e p art i es was ad op t ed b y th e co u rtan di ncl u d edth e fo l l o wi n g d ead l i nes :

6(1 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s co m pl i a nce w i th o uts ta ndi ng Go v ernm ent fa ct di s co v ery s h al l b e COMPLETED b y

o r b efo re J ul y 6 , 2 0 1 5 ; (2 ) Pl ai n t i ff s h al l d es i g nat e ex p ert (s ) an ds erv e rep o rt (s ) o n d efen dan tb y o r b efo re Octo ber 2 9 , 2 01 5 ; (3 ) Defen d an ts h al l d es i g n at e ex pert (s ) an d s erv e rep o rt s an d res po n s e(s ) o n p l ai n t i ff b y o r b efo re J anua ry 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 ; (4 ) Pl ai n t i ff s h al l s erv e res p o n s e rep o rt (s ) o n d efen d an tb y

o r b efo re Februa ry 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 ; (5 ) Defen d an ts h al l s erv e rep l y rep o rt (s ) o n p lai n t i ff b y o r b efo re Ma rch 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 ; (6 ) Ex p ert s s hal l b e av ai l ab l e fo r d ep o s i t io n Ma rch 2 1, 2 0 16 - Apri l 1 5 , 2 0 1 6 ; (7 ) On Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 , o r t wo week s aft er co m p l et i o n o f d i sco very , wh i ch ev er o ccu rs earl i er, co u n s el are d irect edt o FI LE a J o i nt Sta tus Repo rt

. Ord er o f J u n e 4 , 2 0 1 5

. M o s tn o t ewo rt h y am o n g th es e d ead l i n es i s p l ai n t i ff’ s d ead li n e o f J ul y

6 , 2 0 1 5 t o fi n al l y

p ro du ce t h e d o cu m en ts an dan s w ers t o i n t erro g at o ri es req u es t edb y d efen d an t o n M arch 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 an d J ul y 2 4 , 2 0 1 4

. In cred i b l y , d es p i t e h av i n g ap p ro x im at el y o ne y ear t o p erfo rm

th es e d i s co v ery t as k s , wh i ch p lai n t i ff o ri g i n al l y ag reedt o co m

p l et e b efo re Oct o b er 2 8 , 2 0 14 , p l ai n t i ff fai l edt o m eet th e J u l y 6 , 2 01 5 co m

p l ian ce d ead l i n e. In s t ead , aft er 5 PM o n J u l y 6 , 2 0 1 5 , p l ai nt iff’ s co u n s el , M s
. Cyn th i a M al y s zek , reques t edth at g o v ern m en tco u n s el ag ree t o an i n fo rm al ex t en s io n th ro u g h J u l y 1 3, 2 0 1 5 . Def.’ s Ap p . at 5 4 . OnJ u l y

7 , 2 0 1 5, g o v ern m en tco u n sel ag reedt o t h i s s h o rtex t en s i o n b ey o n d the t i m e p eri o dfo r co m p l i an ce s et b y

th i s co u rt

. Id

. Fu rt her ex t en s io n s o f t i m e were req u es t edb y p lai n t i ff’ s co u n s el th e

7fo l l o w i n g week ; o n J u l y 1 5 , 2 01 5 th e g o v ern m en t fi n al l y refu s edt o acced e t o an y m o re d el ay s . Def.’ s Ap p. at5 2 . M r. Ho ffm an s u g g es t ed , i n s t ead , th atM s
. M al y s zekdrafta m o ti o n fo r an en l arg em en to f t i m e fo r h i s rev i ew. Id

. No co m m u n icat io ns were recei v edfro m p l ai nt i ff’ s co u n sel , d es p i t e a rem i n d er em ai l fro m M r. Ho ffm an o n J u l y

2 0 , 2 0 1 5 . Def.’ s M o t. at7 . Th e g o v ern m en t ’ s n ex t act i on i n l i g h to f p l ai n t i ff’ s fai lu re t o m eetd ead li n es o r ev en t o res p o n dt o co m m u n icat io ns fro m

M r. Ho ffm an was t o fi l e a No t i ce Reg ard i n g No n Co m p l i an ce wi th Sch edu l i n g Ord er, d et ai li n g p l ai n t i ff’ s fai l u re t o m eetth e J u l y 6 , 2 0 1 5 d ead l i n e an dfai l u re t o t i m el y req u es tan ex t en si on fro m th e co u rtreg ard i n g th atd ead l i n e. No t i ce o f J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 15 . Defen d an tal s o n o tedth e i m p acto f t h es e d el ay s o n th e co u rt ’ s d i s co verys ch edul e, an dth atth e g o vern m en t m i g htb e fo rced t o fi l e a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s fo r fai l u re t o p ro secu t e. Id

. Acco rd i ng t o th e g o v ern m en t , as o f Sep tem ber 1 3, 2 0 15 p l ai nt iff h ads t i l l n o tco m p l i edwi th th e d i s co v ery

du e o n J u l y

6 , 2 0 1 5, an d h ads t i l l n o t res p o n d ed t o an y o f M r. Ho ffm an ’ s co m

m u n i cat i o n s o n thi s t o p ic. Def.’ s M o t

. at8 . Hen ce, d efen d an t ’ s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s fo r fai lu re t o p ro s ecu te was fi l edo n Sep t em b er 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 . Pl ai n ti ff’ s res po n s e b ri ef was du e Oct o b er 1 , 2 0 15 . Th e d o ck ets h o w s th at an i n co m p l et e fi l i ng was s ub m i t t edattwo m i n u t es b efo re m i dn i g h to n Oct o b er 1 , 2 0 1 5 , b u tth e co m

p l et e res p o n se b ri ef (i n cl ud i n g at t ach m en t s ) was n o t fi l edu n t i l al m o s t3 PM Oct o b er 2 , 2 0 15

. 5 Th e co u rtg ran t edp l ai n t i ff’ s m ot i on fo r an en l arg em en to f t i m e an daccep t edfo r co n s i d erat i on p l ai nt i ff’ s co rrect edb ri ef. Defen d an t ’ s rep l y

b ri ef was t i m el y

fi l edo n Oct o ber 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 . Oral arg u m en twas n ei th er req u es t ed b y th e p art i es n o r req u i redb y th e co u rt

. DI SCUSSI ON
Th i s co u rt ’ s ru l es p erm itd i s m i s s al wh en “ the p l ai n t i ff fai l s t o p ro s ecu t e o r t o co m p l y wi th th es e ru l es o r a co u rto rd er.” RCFC 4 1 (b ). Th ere i s rel at i v el y s p ars e p reced en t i al co m

m en taryo n th i s ru l e i n ap p eal s d eci d edb y th e Un it ed St at es Co u rt o f Ap peal s fo r t h e Fed eral Ci rcu it . Two p reced en t i al cas es p ro v i d e s o m e g en eral g u i d el i nes
.

5 / All versions of this brief and its appendix contain unredacted settlement positions that are improperly

before the undersig

ned. See supra note 4. The court has not considered the settlement figures proposed by plaintiff to defendant, but admonishes Ms. Maly sz ek that the filing of such unredacted material is unacceptable. 8In th e fi rs t cas e, th e Fed eral Ci rcu i tn o t edthat“ d i s m is sal i s a h ars h

s an ct i o n .” Ka di n Co r

p. v. Un it ed

Sta t es , 7 8 2 F.2 d1 7 5 , 1 7 6 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 6 ). No n et h el es s , d i s m i s s al u n d er RCFC 4 1 (b ) i s wi thi n th e d is cret i o n affo rd edth e tri al ju d g e. 6 Id

. (ci tat i o n s o m i tt ed ). In d eed , th e Fed eral Ci rcu itp o i n t edo u tth ata tri al co u rt ’ s p o wer t o en fo rce i t s o rd ers th ro u g h th e s an ct i on o f d is m i s s al “ ‘ m u s t b e m ore t h an th eo ret i cal .’ ” Id

. at1 77 (qu o t i n g Au t o ma t ed Da ta tr o n , In c. v. W o o d co ck , 6 5 9 F.2 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 17 0 (D.C. Ci r. 1 9 8 1 )). In Ka di n , p l ai n t i ff’ s d i l at o ry co n du ct was ad equ at e ju s t i fi cat i o n fo r a d i s m i s sal fo r fai lu re t o p ro s ecu t e:

[Th e] ap p el l an trep eat ed l y an dwi th o u t v al i d ju s ti fi cat i o n i g n oredb o th co urt -i m

p o s edd ead l i n es an d co u rtru l es
. In d eed , th e ap p el l an td i dn o tev en t im el y res p o ndt o the o rd er t o s ho w cau s e wh y

th e co m pl ai n ts h o u ld n o t b e d is m i s s edo r req u es tl eav e t o fi l e i ts u n t i m el y res p o n s e. . . . Th e ap p el l an t ’ s en t i re co u rs e o f co n du ct refl ect eda cal l o u s d is reg ardfo r t h e ru les an dreg u l at i o ns o f th e co u rtan dfel l far s h o rto f t h e o b l i g at i on s an at t o rn ey o wes t o a co u rtb efo re wh ich h e i s co n du ct i n g l i t i gat i o n
. 7 8 2 F.2 dat1 7 6 -7 7 . Pl ai nt iff’ s co ndu cth ere i s s tri k i n g l y s i m i lar. M u l t ip l e co u rt

o rd eredd ead l i nes h av e b een i g n o red . Here, t oo , n o v al i d ju s t i fi cat i o n h as b een o ffered t o ex cu s e p l ai nt iff’ s d el ay s i n co m pl et i n g b as i c d i s co v ery

t as k s an dM s
. M al y s zek ’ s fai l u re t o reas o n ab l y co n fer wi th d efen d an t an dt o s ub m i tt i m el y fi li n g s
. 7 Th e o n ly

o b vi o u s d ifferen ce b etween th i s cas e an d Ka di n i s t hath ere

6 / Defendant arg

ues that the F ederal Circuit has not explicitly adopted any multi-factor test which sets bounds on the trial court’s discretion in this reg ard. Def.’s Reply at 6. That statement of the law appears to be correct, althoug h at least one judg e of this court has considered such a framework as part of the dismissal for failure to prosecute inquiry

. See CANVS Corp. v. United States , 110 F ed. Cl. 19, 29 (2013) (citing In re Phenylpropanolamine ( P PA) Prods. Liab. Litig. , 460 F

. 3 d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)). Defendant arg ues, further, that only a “gross abuse of discretion” invalidates a dismissal by this court for failure to prosecute. Def.’s Reply

at 6 (citing United States v. Chas. Kurz Co. , 396 F

. 2d 1013, 1016 (C.C.P.A 1968)). The court does not reach this contention because it is unnecessary to the court’s analy sis here.

7 / Althoug h plaintiff recites a litany of claimed obstacles to compliance with defendant’s (continued...) 9p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el h as as k edfo r l eav e t o fi l e u n t im el y s ubm i s s i o ns o n ce d ead l i n es h av e p as s ed

. Tu rn i n g n o wt o a s eco n d, o ft -ci t edcas e, t h e Fed eral Ci rcu itag ai n n o t edth at d i s m i s s al u n der RCFC 4 1 (b ) i s wi th i n th e d i scret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt

. Cl a u d e E. At ki ns En t er

s., In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 8 9 9 F.2 d1 1 80 , 1 1 8 3 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 90 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). In Cl a u d e E. At ki n s , th e p l ai nt i ff h adb een twi ce warn edi n co u rto rd ers th atd i s m is s al u n d er RCFC 4 1 (b ) m i g h tres u l t i f t h atp art y co nt i n u ed t o i gn o re co u rt -o rd eredd ead l i n es
. Id

. Un der t h i s p reced en t , th erefo re, “ two cl ear warn i n gs ” referen ci n g RCFC 4 1 (b ) wi ll ap p aren t l y s u ffi ce s o th atd i s m i s s al i s n o t an ab us e o f th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n . Here, p l ai n t i ff recei v ed o ne cl ear RCFC 4 1 (b ) warn i n g , as wel l as two m o re g en eral warn i ng s th atp l ai nt i ff m u s t co m p l y wi th th e co u rt ’ s o rd ers
. S ee Ord ers o f Ap ri l 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 , M ay 4 , 2 0 1 5 an dM ay

2 9, 2 0 1 5 . Pl ai n ti ff h as co n t i n u edt o fl o u td i s co v ery d ead l i n es an dm i s s fi li ng d ead li n es . Thu s , u nd er Cl a u de E. At ki n s an d Ka di n , d i sm i s s al o f t hi s cas e fo r fai l u re t o p ro s ecu t e i s i n d eedwi th i n th e co u rt ’ s d i s cret i on
. 8
Al th ou g h the p art i es h av e ci t eda n u m b er o f n o n -p reced en t i al cas es i n s up p orto f t h ei r p os i ti o n s o n d i s m i ss al , th e co u rtfi n d s th es e ci t at i o ns t o cas es t o b e o f l i t t l e as s i s t an ce h ere b ecau s e d i s m i s s al fo r fai l u re t o p ro s ecu t e i s a fact -s p eci fi c i n qu i ry
. Fu rt h er, t h e o n e Un i t edSt at es Sup rem e Co u rtcas e ci t edb y p l ai n t i ff, Li n k v. W a b a s h Ry. Co , 3 70 U.S. 6 2 6 (1 9 6 2 ), s p eak s g en eral l y o f th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n t o d i s m i s s fo r fai l u re t o p ro s ecu t e b u to ffers l i t t l e g u i d an ce i n th e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e. 9 Th e co u rtth erefo re co n s i ders wh et h er, u n d er t h e

7 (...continued) discovery requests, none of the obstacles cited can ex c use the egreg ious failures on the part of plaintiff to meet g enerously ex tended compliance deadlines that were ag reed to by plaintiff’s counsel.

8 / I f two ex plicit warning s referencing RCF C 41(b) are required to justify dismissal under the rule, this order and the court’s Show Cause Order of May 4, 2015 provide notice of this court’s final warning

to plaintiff. I t does not appear, however, that the F ederal Circuit would require two warning s in all circumstances. See Duncan v. United States , 432 F . App’x 963 (F ed. Cir. 2011) (affirming , in a non-precedential decision, a dismissal entered two weeks after the deadline for the filing

of an amended complaint had passed, where only one dismissal warning was provided the plaintiff).

9 / Plaintiff appears to rely larg ely on the dissentingopinion in Link . Pl.’s Resp. at 5 & (continued...) 10l i m i ted g ui d an ce p ro v i d edb y b i n d in g p reced en t , an dup on ex am in at i o n o f t h e p art i cu l ar fact s o f th i s cas e, i t s h o u l dd is m i ss p l ai n t i ff’ s s u i t

. Th e ex h i b i t s p ro v i d edb y th e p art ies s h o w th at p l ai n t i ff’ s p ro secu t i o n o f i t s cl ai m h as b een d i l at o ry an du n accep t ab l e. Th e d ock eti n th i s cas e refl ect s th at rep eat edwarn i n gs t o p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n sel h av e h adn o b en efi ci al effect o n p l ai n t i ff’ s co m p l ian ce wi th i ts d i s co v ery o b l i g at i o ns o r i t s o b l ig at i o n s t o d efen d an t ’ s co u n sel an d th e co u rt . Di s m i s sal ap p ears t o b e t h e o n l y o p t io n wh i ch wo u l dco n cl u s i v el y p u tan en d t o u n

j us t i fi edd el ay s an dth e fl o u t i ng o f t h e co u rt ’ s d ead l i n es b y p l ai n t i ff. Th e co u rti s n o n et h el es s m i n d fu l th atd i s m i s s al i s th e h ars h es to f s an ct i o n s , an d t h atp l ai n t i ff wo u l dm o re d eep l y s uffer t he co n seq u en ces o f d i s m i s s al th an wo u l dp l ai n ti ff’ s co u n s el

. 1 0 Acco rd i n g l y , d es p i t e p l ai n t i ff’ s ab y s m al reco rdo f fai l i n g t o p ro s ecu t e i t s cl ai m th u s far, t h e co u rtn ev erth el es s co n cl u d es th ato fferi n g p l ai n t i ff a fi n al ch an ce t o fu l fi ll i t s res p o n s i b i l i t i es as a l i ti g an tb efo re t h i s co u rti s i n the i n t eres ts o f ju s ti ce. CONCLUSI ON
Defen d an t ’ s m o t i o n i s d en i edfo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas on s
. Al th ou g h p l ai n t i ff’ s res p o n se b ri ef s et s fo rt h a p ro p o s al fo r a rev i s edd i s co verys ch edu l e, th ats ch edu l e i s n ow o u t d at ed , wh et h er o r n o t i twas ev er ach i ev ab l e, o r accep t ab l e t o b o th p art i es
. 1 1 Th e co u rtp refers th atb o th p art i es co n fer an d es t ab l i sh a

9 (...continued) nn.4-6.

1 0 / Plaintiff’s response brief attempts to ex cuse dilatory conduct by

referencing

the challeng ingcircumstances of Grooms &Company Construction, Inc. and asserting that the principals of that company a re difficult to reach. The court notes, however, that some of the ex c uses for delay s presented to Mr. Hoffman by Ms. Maly sz ek focused on the unavailability of plaintiff’s counsel and her associates. SeeDef.’s App. at 9, 53-54. At other times plaintiff’s counsel simply

did not respond to communications from Mr. Hoffman, or vag uely commented that the preparation of requested documents would take more time without identify ingany particular ex c use. See id. at 40-41. On this record, the court cannot attribute plaintiff’s dilatory conduct primarily

to the circumstances of Ms. Malysz e k’s client.

1 1 / The court notes defendant’s concern that plaintiff cannot locate the most basic of contract performance documentation to prosecute its claim. SeeDef.’s Reply at 4 n.3. The court observes that over two y

ears have passed since the filing o f the complaint in this case. Neither (continued...)
11d i s co v ery

s ch edul e t hatwi l l be real i st i c an dwh ich wi ll b e acco m p l i s h ed . Th at s ch edu l e s h o u ldt ak e i n to acco u n tth e fact th atfu rt h er d i s reg ardb y p l ai n t i ff o f co u rt -o rd ered dead l i nes s hal l b e s u ffi ci en t g ro u n d s fo r d i s m i s s al p u rs u an t t o RCFC 4 1 (b ).
To en s u re t hatd efen d an t ’ s co u n s el i s n o t , o n ce ag ai n , o b l i g edt o rep eat ed l y rem i n dp l ai n t i ff’ s co un s el o f upco m i n g o r m i ss edd ead l in es , th e co u rtn o w req u i res p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el t o fi l e al l up co m i n g jo i n ts t atu s rep o rt s an dan y jo i n t m o ti o n s fo r en l arg em en ts o f t i m e. Reg ard i n g th e l at t er, p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n s el i s d i rect ed t o th e p ro v i s i o n s o f RCFC 6 (b ), i n g en eral , an d s peci fi cal l y t o the req u i rem en tth at“ g o odcau s e” b e s h o wn fo r req u es t edex t en s i o n s o f t i m e. Acco rd in g ly , i ti s h ereb y ORDERED that (1 ) Defen d an t ’ s M o ti o n t o Di sm i s s fo r Fai l u re t o Pro secu t e, fi l ed Sep t em b er 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 , i s DENI ED ; (2 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s co u ns el s h al l PROVI D E a co p y o f t hi s o rd er t o each o f t h e p ri n ci p al s o f Gro o m s & Co m p an y Co n s tru ct i o n , In c. o n o r b efo re No v em ber 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ; an d (3 ) Ono r b efo re No v em ber 3 0 , 2 0 1 5 , p l ai n t i ff s h al l FI LE th e p art i es ’ J oi nt Sta tus Repo rt p ro p o si n g a rev i s i o n o f t h e d i s co v ery s ch edu le s etfo rt h i n t h e co u rt ’ s o rd er o f Ju n e 4 , 2 0 1 5

.

/ s / Ly n n J . Bu s h LYNN J . BUSH Sen i o r Ju d g e

1 1 (...continued) the scattered state of plaintiff’s contract documents, nor the communication difficulties between plaintiff’s counsel and the Grooms principals, constitute valid ex cuses for any disruptions of this litig ation g oingforward. I f plaintiff is not, at this late hour, prepared to efficiently litig ate its case, dismissal, voluntary or otherwise, would be appropriate.

12