## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 2 -5 2 7 C (Fi l edJ an u ary

1 4 , 2 0 1 5)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * RQ SQUARED, LLC,

Pla i n t if f ,

v . THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d an t

. * * * * * * * * * * Im p l i ed -i n -Fact Co n t ract Cl ai m ; RCFC 1 2 (c); RCFC 5 6 (d ).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pa u l W . Vern er , New Yo rk , NY, fo r p lai n t i ff.
Jo s h u a E. Ku r l a n d , wi t h wh o m were Jo yce R. Br a n d

a , Act i n g As s is t an t At t o rn ey Gen eral , Ro b er t E. Ki r

s ch ma n , Jr

. , Di rect o r, St even J. Gi l li n gh a m , As s is t an tDi rect o r, Un it edSt at es Dep art m en t o f J u s t i ce, W as h i ng t o n , D.C., fo r d efen d an t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ OPI NI ON

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BUSH , S en i o r Ju d g e. Th e co u rt h as b efo re i td efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en to n th e p l ead i n g s , rel y i n g o n Ru l e 1 2 (c) o f t he Ru l es o f t he Un i t edSt at es Co urto f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC), as wel l as , i n th e al t ern at i v e, d efen d an t ’ s m o t io n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t , rel y i n g o n RCFC 5 6 . Th es e m o t i o n s h av e b een fu l l y b ri efed

. Oral arg um en twas n ei t h er req u es t ed b y t h e p art i es n o r d eem edn eces s ary b y th e co urt . Fo r th e reas on s d es cri b ed b el o w , d efen d an t ’ s RCFC 1 2 (c) m o t i on i s g ran tedi n p artan dd en iedi n p art , an dd efen dan t ’ s RCFC 5 6 m o t i o n i s d eferred p en d i n g l i m i ted ,

t arg et ed d i s co very
. BACKGROUND 1
I . I ntro ducti o n Th i s a s t rai g h tfo rward d i s p u t e. RQ Squared , LLC (RQ2 ), a t ech n ol o g y co m p an y , as s ert s t h atth e Un i t edSt at es Po s t al Serv i ce (USPS) en t ered i n t o n eg ot i at i on s wi t h RQ2 reg ard i n g a p o t en t i al b u s i n es s rel at i o n s h i p b et ween th e t wo en t i t i es . Acco rd i n g t o the co m p l ai n t , th e n eg o t i at io n s fal t ered an ds o m e t i m e l at er p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n b el o n g i n g t o RQ2 – i n fo rm at i o n th ath adb een rev eal edt o USPS – was i m

p ro p erl y u s edb y

USPS an dd i s cl o s ed t o o t h er b u si n es s es . Th e g o v ern m en tco n t en ds , o n t h e o t h er h an d , th atn o p ro p ri et ary RQ2 i n fo rm at i o n was u s ed or d i s cl o s edb y

USPS. Th e b as i c d i s p ut e h as p ro ceed ed , i n v ari o u s fo rm s , i n a s u i tb ro u g h t i n th e Un it edSt at es Di s tri ctCo u rt fo r t h e W es tern Di s tri cto f M i s s ou ri , an di n two s u it s b efo re t h i s co u rt

. I I . Hi s to ry o f RQ2 ’s “ Dua l La bel Sy stem ” RQ2 i s b as edi n St . J os ep h , M i s s o u ri

. Co m p l. ¶ 1 . Th e fo un d er an d

“ M em b er M an ag er” o f RQ2 i s Ch ri s t o p her Gru b b , wh o wo rk edas a Sen i o r Acco u n tEx ecu t iv e wi t h Nex t el Co m m u ni cat i o n s , In c. fo r ab o u ta y ear b efo re l eav i ng t o s t artRQ2 i n 1 9 9 8 . Grub b Decl . ¶¶ 1 4 , 1 7 -1 8

. In i t i al l y , RQ2 p u rch as ed an d s ol dn ew an d u s edcel l p ho n es
. Id

. ¶ 1 8 . “ In o r aro u n d2 0 0 1 , RQ2 d ev el o p ed a p ro p ri et ary

web -b as ed p ro g ram

an ds o ftware t o en ab l e cu s t om ers o f RQ2 ’ s cl i en ts t o p ri n tFed eral Ex p res s (“ Fed Ex ”) l ab el s i n o rd er t o return u s ed , d am ag ed , o r d efect iv e p ro du ct s [t o the s el l er] .” Co m pl

. ¶ 1 0 . Atth e t i m e, RQ2 ’ s p ro du ct retu rn s erv i ce, as i t was o ri g i n al l y d ev el o p ed , d ep en ded o n l y o n th e Fed Ex s h i p p i n g i n fras t ru ctu re. Id

. ¶¶ 1 0 -1 2 ; Grub b Decl . ¶¶ 2 3 , 3 3, 3 5

. RQ2 ’ s p ri m ary

cl i en tfo r t h is s erv i ce ap p ears t o h av e b een Nex t el atth at

1 / The facts recounted here are taken from the complaint and other filing s submitted by the parties, and appear to be undisputed for the purpose of resolving this court’s jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. The court makes no finding s of fact in this opinion other than for the purpose of determiningits jurisdiction over plaintiff’s suit. 2p o i n ti n t i m e: RQ2 . . . s u cces s fu l l y

wo rk ed wi t h Nex t el Co m m un i cat io n s , In c. (“Nex t el ”) o n a web -b as ed p ro g ram u s edt o as s i stcu s t o m ers i n ret ri ev i ng u s ed , d am ag edo r d efect i v e cel l p h on es fo r Nex t el . As a res u l t o f th e p ro ject , Nex t el real izedi two u l d b e b en efi ci al t o fi n d a way

t o i ncreas e t h e freq u en cy wi t h wh i ch an i n d iv i du al wh o u s edRQ2 ’ s web -b as edap p l i cat i on act u al l y fo l l o wedth ro u g h wi t h t h e s h i pp i n g o f t h e d efect i v e p ho n e, wh i ch atth e t i m e, req u i redth e cu s t o m er t o ap p ear p h y s i cal l y

ata Fed eral Ex pres s b o x, k i o s ko r d ep o t . Inres p o n se, wh i l e RQ2 b eg and ev el o p i n g ad d i t i o n al s h i p p i ng o p ti o n s fo r Nex t el , i tco n cei v edo f t h e RQ2 Id ea; an i d ea fo r dual l ab el s – a l ab el wi t h a b ar co d e[] o r co d es th atwo u l d al lo w a p ack ag e t o b e p ro ces s edan ds h i p p edb y b o t h Fed eral Ex p res s an d USPS, al l o w i n g t h e cu s t o m er/ sh i p p er t o ch o o se wh i ch ev er carri er was m o re co n ven i en t an d t h ereb y i n creas i n g th e v o l u m e an deffi ci en cy o f t h e d el i v ery

an d h an d l i n g o f t h es e p ack ag es
. Co m p l . Ex . 1 at3

. Th u s , o ne i n no v at i o n i n th e al l eg ed l y p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n d ev el o p edb y RQ2 i n 2 0 0 5 was th e du al b ar co d e l ab el :

In o r aro u n dJ u ne o f 2 0 0 5 , RQ2 co n cei v ed o f t h e n o v el i d ea[] o f Du al Lab el s : a s i n g l e l ab el wi t h m u l t i p l e b ar co d es th atwo u l dal l o w a p ack ag e t o b e p ro ces s edan d s h i p p edb y

ei t her Fed Ex o r USPS.
Co m p l . ¶ 1 3 . Th e o t h er al l eg ed l y p ro p ri et ary

m at eri al d ev el o pedb y

RQ2 atth i s t i m e was th e t ech n o l o g y

b eh i n d t h e l ab el , s om et i m es referred t o as t h e p ro du ct retu rn p ro g ram ’ s “ b acken d , ” Grub b Decl . ¶ 3 0 , an i m po rt an tco m

po n en to f t h e
“ Du al Lab el Sy s t em ”:

3RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary web -b as edp ro g ram

al l o w i n g fo r em b ed d edi n fo rm at i o n i n l ab el b ar co d es an dRQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary l o g i st i cal an dtrack i n g s o ftware (co l lect i v el y referred t o as th e “ Du al Lab el Sy s t em ”) were es s en t ial t o t h e fu n ct io n o f t h e Du al Lab el

. Co m p l . ¶ 2 3 ; s ee Grub b Decl . ¶ 3 2 (as s ert i n g th atRQ2 d ev el op ed “ n eces s ary co m p u t er p ro g ram s , em

b ed d edb ar co d es an d s i m u l tan eo u s t rack i n g an db i l l i n g ” fo r i t s “ Du al Lab el Dy

nam i c Back En dSy s t em ,” a s y s t em th atwas n o t “ i n ex i s t en ce an y

wh ere i n t h e i n du s t ry

atthe t i m e”).
I I I . Po s ta l Serv i ce Pro duct Return Pro gra m s Th e USPS, m ean wh i le, h adb een ex peri m en t i ng wi t h p ro ductretu rn m ai l i n g p ro g ram s , t o o , wh i ch i nv o l v edco l l ab o rat io n b etween USPS an d i n d ep en den t d el i v ery co m p an i es . Th ere was , fo r ex am p l e, an ex i s t i n g p ro g ram

cal ledParcel Sel ect , wh i ch u s ed a co m b i n at i o n o f USPS d el i v ery t o cu s to m ers ’ h o m es , o r cu s t o m ers dro p p i n g o ff p ack ag es fo r ret u rn atth ei r l ocal p o s t o ffi ce, wi th l o n g d i s t an ce t ran s p o rtt o o r fro m th e s el l er b y

a co m p an y s u ch as Un i tedParcel Serv i ce o f Am eri ca, In c. (UPS) o r Fed Ex Co rp o rat i o n (Fed Ex ). Co ch ran e Decl . ¶ 2 ; Def.’ s M o t . at 3 . To co m

p l em en tth i s ex i s t i n g s y s tem , USPS l au n ch eda p i l otp ro g ram cal l edParcel Ret u rn Serv ice i n 2 0 0 3 , wh i ch l at er b ecam e p erm an en t . Co m p l . ¶¶ 2 4 -2 5; Def.’ s M ot . at3

. Th e Parcel Retu rn Serv i ce (PRS) p i l otp ro g ram d efi es s u cci n ctd es cri p t i o n , b ecau s e i ti n v o l ves a n um b er o f h i g h l y

t ech n i cal s p eci fi cat io n s fo r th e s h ari n g o f t as k s b et ween USPS an dth e PRS p ro v i d er, as wel l as v ari o u s track in g an d acco u n t in g m ech an i s m s . A PRS o v erv i ew i s p ro v i d edi n th e co m p l ai n t : [I] n an effo rtt o faci l i t at e m o re effi ci en tp ack ag e h an d l i n g , th e USPS b eg an an ex p eri m en t al p ro g ram o f p rep ri n ted , p rep ai dretu rn l ab el s p ro v id edt o cu st o m ers b y m erch an t s s o th atcu s t o m ers co u l dm o re effi ci en t l y s h i p p ack ag es t h atn eed edt o b e ret u rn ed , rep ai red , recy cl ed , o r recal led

. Co m p l . ¶ 2 4 . As fu rt h er ex p l ai n edb y d efen dan t , PRS

4al l o ws cu s t om ers t o retu rn m erch an d i s e t o a ret ai ler b y

s i m p l y p l aci n g t h e m erch an d is e b acki n a p ack ag e, affi x i n g th e l ab el p ro v i d edb y

th e m erch an t, an dei th er b ri n gi ng th e p ack ag e t o th ei r l o cal p o s t o ffi ce fo r ret u rn t o th e m erch an t , h an d i n g i t t o a m ai lp ers o n , o r s ch edu l i n g a h o m e p ickup . Th e cu s t o m er i s n o treq u i redt o p ay p os t ag e fo r t h e ret u rn , wh i le t h e m erch an ti s req u iredt o p ay

cert ai n an n u al fees t o p art i ci pat e i n the p ro gram , as wel l as t he p os t ag e fo r an y

p ack ag es actu al l y

retu rn ed t o th e m erch an tth ro u g h t h e p ro g ram . In o rd er t o b e ap p ro v edt o p art i ci pat e i n the PRS, m erch an ts o r p art i ci p at i n g s erv i ce p ro v i d ers n eedt o co m

p l y wi t h USPS’ s d et ai l eds p eci fi cat i o n s, i ncl u d in g s p eci fi cat io n s reg ard in g th e ret urn m ai l i ng l ab el th ey wo u l du s e. A d ev iat i o n fro m USPS’ s s p eci fi cat i o n s req u i res USPS g ran ti n g a wai v er. Th e s t an d ardl ab el fo r t h e PRS p ro g ram

i s n o ta s o -cal l ed“ du al l ab el ” b ecau s e i tco n t ai n s a s in g le USPS b ar co d e an di s n o ti n ten d edfo r u s e i n co n ju n ct i o n wi t h o t h er carri ers , s u ch as UPS o r Fed eral Ex p res s
. Def.’ s M o t . at3 -4 (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Itap p ears th ato n l y o ne o r t w o PRS p ro v id ers p art ici p at edi n th e PRS p ro g ram i n th e earl y y ears
. S

ee Grubb Decl

. ¶ 1 11 ; Co ch ran e Decl . ¶ 1 0 ; Def.’ s M o t . Ex . 1 At t . A at2 ; Pl

. ’ s Op p . at 2 3 . Th e o n l y PRS p ro v id er i d en t i fi edb y th e p art i es i s a co m

p an y n am edNewg i s t i cs
. Grubb Decl . ¶ 1 1 1 ; Co ch ran e Decl . ¶ 1 0 ; Def.’ s M o t. Ex . 1 At t. A at2 ; Pl .’ s Op p
. at2 3

. I V. RQ2 Attem pts to Beco m e a Pro duct Return Serv i ce Pro v ider fo r USPS
Th ere are t w o v ers i on s o f t h e h i st o ry o f n eg o t i at i o ns b et ween RQ2 an d

5USPS reg ard in g a p o t en t i al b u s i n es s co l l ab o rat i o n b et ween th e two en t i t i es
.

Acco rd in g t o p l ai n ti ff, t h e n eg o t i at i o n s b eg an i n J u n e o f 2 0 0 5 :

[I] n l i n e wi t h th e USPS’ co n cern o v er i ncreas ed effi ci en cy i n p ack ag e h an dl i n g , RQ2 b ro u g h ti t s i d ea fo r dual l ab el i n g t o USPS wi t h th e ex p res s i n ten to f co n v i n ci n g USPS t o u s e t h e RQ2 Id ea s o thatRQ2 co u l d p ro fi tfro m

th atu s e i n J u n e o f 2 0 0 5

. Co m p l . Ex . 1 at3 . Neg ot i at i o ns co n t i n u edwi t h i n creas i ng i n teres tfro m USPS. Acco rd in g t o p l ai n ti ff, USPS’ s eag ern es s t o cl o s e a d eal was ev i d en cedb y RQ2 ’ s p art i ci p at i o n i n a USPS v en d o r co n feren ce; a s i te v i s itb y USPS o ffi ci al s t o RQ2 ’ s b u s i n es s l o cat i o n ; a n u m

b er o f face-t o -face m eet in g s ; an dex ch an g es o f d o cu m en t s , em ai l s an dt el ep h o n e cal l s. Id

. ¶¶ 2 7 , 3 1 -3 3 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 5 4 -5 5 , 5 8 , 6 0 -6 1 , 6 5 , 6 7 -6 8 . USPS an d RQ2 , al on g wi t h th e p art i ci pat i on o f Fed E x , ev en tu al l y d ev el o p ed a p l an an ds ch edu l e t o l au n ch RQ2 as a PRS p ro v i d er. Id

. ¶¶ 6 5 , 6 7 -6 8

. No n et h el es s , USPS, p erh ap s b ecau s e o f a d i s p u t e wi t h Fed Ex , d el ay edfi n al i zat i o n o f t h e l au n ch p l an , n ev er ap p ro v edRQ2 ’ s ap pl i cat io n t o b eco m e a PRS p ro v i d er, an d ev en tu al l y

s t o p p edan s weri n g an y co m m u n i cat i o ns fro m

RQ2

. Id

. ¶¶ 6 9 -7 2

. Defen d an td oes n o ts p eci fi cal l y d i sp u t e th e fact s p res en t edb y RQ2 th at s u g g es tth atn eg o t i at io n s were i n p ro g res s b et ween USPS an dRQ2 , o r t h atcert ai n m i l es t o nes o f t h o se n eg o ti at i o n s o ccu rredi n 2 0 0 5 an d 2 0 0 6 . In st ead , a d ecl arat i o n s ub m i t t edb y J am es P. Co ch ran e o f USPS n o tes th at M r. Co ch ran e was i n vo l v edi n
“ d eal i n gs . . . i n co n n ect io n wi t h RQ Squ ared ’ s effo rt s t o b eco m e a Parcel Retu rn Serv i ce p ro v i d er.” Co ch ran e Decl . ¶ 3 . In h i s v i ew, USPS was n ot i nt eres t edi n an y “ du al l ab el ” i d ea o r s y s tem th atRQ2 co u l dp ro v i d e; i twas i n t eres t edi n h av i n g an ad di t i o n al PRS p ro v i d er. Id

. ¶¶ 4 -5 . Thu s, th e p ri m ary d i fferen ce i n th e two v ers i on s o f t h e n eg o t i at io ns b et ween RQ2 an dUSPS i s t h atp l ai n t i ff as s ert s th at USPS was eag er t o o b t ai n RQ2 ’ s t ech n o l og y , wh ereas th e g o v ern m en t ’ s d ecl aran t as s ert s th atUSPS m erel y d es iredan o t h er PRS p ro v i d er t o p art i ci p at e i n i t s p i l o t p ro g ram
. V. Al l eg ed Mi s us e o f RQ2 ’s Pro pri eta ry I nfo rm ati o n In g en eral , p l ai n t i ff as s ert s th at :

6Th e du al l ab el s y s t em was d ev el o p eds o l el y

b y RQ2 fo r USPS. Rel y i n g o n th e u n d ers t an d i n g t hatUSPS wo u l d n ot ex p l oi tth e RQ2 Id ea wi t h o u tco m p en s at i o n t o RQ2 an dth at USPS wo u l dk eep co n fi den t i al th e d et ai l s o f t h e RQ2 Id ea, RQ2 co l l ab o rat ed wi th USPS o v er t h e co urs e o f two y ears t o i n t eg rat e RQ2 ’ s co ncep tan d l au n ch i t wi t h USPS an d Fed eral Ex p res s . W i th o u twarn i ng , an d i n s t eado f p ro ceed i n g t o l au n ch wi t h RQ2 , USPS cu to ff co m m un i cat io n wi t h RQ2 , m i s ap pro p ri at edth e RQ2 Id ea an db reach edi t s i m

p l i edag reem en twi t h RQ2 t o n ot ex p l o i tRQ2 ’ s i d ea wi t h o u t co m pen s at io n t o RQ2 an dt o k eep the d et ai l s o f RQ2 ’ s i d ea co n fi den t i al

. Co m p l . Ex . 1 at5 . M o re s p eci fi cal l y , p lai n ti ff p o i nt s t o v ari o u s m ark i n g s o n d o cu m en t s rel at edt o t h e PRS ap p l i cat i o n p ro ces s wh i ch i d en t i fy cert ai n m at eri al as co n fi d en t i al an d/o r p ro p ri et ary
. Id

. ¶¶ 3 4 , 4 0 , 4 2 , 5 1 -5 2, 6 6

. Pl ai n t i ff as s ert s t h atRQ2 rev eal edp ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n t o USPS as p arto f t h e PRS ap p l i cat i o n p ro ces s du ri n g 2 0 0 5-0 6. Id

. ¶¶ 3 5 , 3 8 -3 9 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 5 3 . Pl ai nt i ff fu rt h er as sert s th at t h es e fact s s h o w th at RQ2 an dUSPS en t ered i n t o an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ract t o k eep RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n co nfi d en ti al , an dt o n o t u s e RQ2 ’ s i n fo rm at i o n wi t h o u tco m p en s at i n g RQ2 fo r i ts v al uab l e “ du al l ab el ” t rad e s ecret

. Th e al l eg edb reach o f t h i s i m p li ed -i n-fact co n t ract was m an i fes t edi n two way s , acco rd i n g t o t h e co m p l ai n t . UPS an n o u n cedearl y i n 2 0 0 9 th ati two u l d l au n ch a co l l ab o rat i v e p ro du ct retu rn s erv i ce wi t h USPS –th e “ Fl ex i b l e Acces s Pro g ram .” Co m

p l. ¶¶ 7 7 -7 9

. Pl ai n t i ff as s ert s t hatFl ex i b l e Acces s “ rep l i cat es RQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el p ro gram
. ” Id

. ¶ 7 9 . Si m i l arl y , Fed Ex l au n ch eda co l l ab o rat i v e p ro ductretu rn s erv i ce wi t h USPS l at er i n 2 0 0 9 cal ledSm art Po s t , wh i ch al s o , acco rd i n g t o p l ai n t i ff, rep l i cat es RQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el p ro g ram
. Id

. ¶ 8 2

. Th es e fact s , acco rd i n g t o th e co m p l ai n t , s h o w th atUSPS d is cl os edRQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n t o UPS an d Fed Ex an dth atUSPS d i dn o tco m p en s at e RQ2 fo r i t s p ro p ri et ary

i nfo rm at i on . USPS t h erefo re al l eg ed l y b reach edth e i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract b et ween RQ2 an dUSPS:

USPS t h ro u g h i t s em

p l o y ees d i s cl o sedRQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary Du al Lab el Sy s t em , i n cl ud i ng p ro p ri et ary p ro g ram s an d

7s o ft ware, t o UPS an dFed Ex [an d ] USPS u sedth e p ro p ri et ary RQ2 Du al Lab el Sy s t em t o d ev el o p an d i m p l em en tth e UPS Fl ex i b l e Acces s Pro g ram an dth e Fed Ex Sm art Po s tp ro g ram s
. Co m p l . ¶¶ 7 3 -7 4. Th es e b as ic fact u al al l eg at io n s h av e b een al l eg edb y RQ2 t o s up p orta v ari et y

o f l eg al cl ai m s i n th i s co u rtan del s ewh ere. VI . Hi s to ry o f Bus i nes s Di ffi cul ti es fo r RQ2 a nd Li ti g a ti o n In l at e 2 0 06 , RQ2 , Ch ri s t o p h er Grubb , Val eri e J . Grub b (RQ2 ’ s v ice p res i den t , acco rd i n g t o an ex h ib i tfi l edi n t h i s cas e), an dRQ2 ’ s p aren tco rp o rat i o n Rel i ab l e Co m

m u n i cat i o n s , In c., al o n g wi t h o t h er d efen d an t s, were s u edi n t h e Un i ted St at es Di s t ri ctCo u rtfo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri cto f M i s s o uri fo r an al l eg ed fai l u re t o m ak e p aym en t s o n a b u s in es s l oan an d rel at edg u aran t ees
. U .S . Ba n k Na t ’l As s o c. v. RQ S

q ua red , L.L.C. , No . 0 6 -6 1 32 -CV-FJ -J TM , (W .D. M o . fi l ed No v . 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). Th e d i s t ri ctco u rtap p o i n t ed a recei v er t o o p erat e RQ2 o n Decem b er 2 2 , 2 0 06 . Su m

m ary ju d g m en t i n th at cas e was g ran t edag ai n st RQ2 , M r. Grub b , Val eri e Grub b , an d Rel i ab l e Co m m u n i cat io n s , In c., i n t h e am o u n to f $ 2 ,1 9 9 ,0 8 7 .5 6 o n J u l y

1 9 , 2 0 0 7 . Acco rd i n g t o the co m p lai n tfi l edi n t hatcas e, Rel i ab l e Co m

m u n i cat i o n s , In c. h adl eti t s co rp o rat e reg i st ry l ap se b efo re No v em b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 6

. In 2 0 1 0 , RQ2 s u edth e Un i t edSt at es i n two co u rt s reg ard i n g i t s PRS ap p li cat io n wi t h th e USPS, al l eg i n g t h ati t s p ro pri et ary i n fo rm at i on h adb een m i s ap p ro p ri at ed . Inth e fi rs ts u i t , wh i ch was fi l ed i n th i s co u rt , RQ2 al l eg edi n i t s co m p l ai n tth ata t ak i n g o f i ts du al l ab el s y s t em trad e s ecret h ado ccu rredan dth ati t was o w edatl eas t$ 7 86 ,5 00 ,0 0 0

. RQ S q u a r ed , L.L.C. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , No

. 1 0 -5 6 7 (Fed . Cl . fi l edAu g
. 2 0 , 2 01 0 ). Th atcas e was v o lu n t ari l y d i s m i s s ed o n M arch 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 b y th e p l ai n ti ff. Th e s eco n ds u i twas fi l edi n th e Un i tedSt at es Di st ri ctCo u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri cto f M i s s o u ri o n th e s am e fact s an dal leg edthatu n d er t h e Fed eral To rtCl ai m s Act , 2 8 U.S.C. § § 1 3 4 6, 2 6 7 1 -2 6 8 0 (2 0 1 2 ) (FTCA), t he Un i ted St at es was l iab l e t o p l ai n t i ff fo r a b reach o f fi duci ary du t y fo r atl eas t $ 7 8 6 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

. RQ S

qu a r ed , L.L.C. v. Un i ted

Sta t es , No . 1 0-6 1 0 8 -CV-SJ -J TM , (W

. D. M o . fi l edSep t . 1 0 , 2 0 10 ). Th at cas e was d i sm i s s ed o n M arch 8 , 2 0 1 1 aft er t h e d i s t ri ctco u rtg ran t edth e g o v ern m en t ’ s m o ti o n t o d i sm i s s o n th e g ro u nd s th at t h e FTCA h adn otwai v edth e Un i t edSt at es ’ s ov erei g n i m m u n i t y ag ai n s tcl ai m s

8t h atrel i edi n an y p arto n al l eg edg o vern m en tm i s rep res en t at i on s
. Nex t , o n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , RQ2 s ub m i t teda cl ai m , o n ex act l y th e s am e fact s as i n the p ri o r s u it s , u n d er t h e Co n t ract Di s p u t es Act , 4 1 U.S.C. § § 7 1 0 1-7 1 0 9 (2 0 12 ) (CDA), t o a USPS “ Fi el d Co n tract in g Offi cer.” Co m p l

. ¶ 7 , Ex . 1 . Pl ai nt i ff co n tes t s USPS’ s d eem edd en i al o f t h e CDA cl ai m i n t h e i n s tan ts u i t , th ro u gh a co m p l ai n tfi l edi n th i s co u rto n Au g u s t2 1 , 2 0 1 2. Acco m p an y in g t h e co m

pl ai n t was t h e req u i redco rp o rat e d i s cl o s ure s t at em en t , al s o fi l edAu g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , wh i ch s t at edth atRel i ab l e Co m m u ni cat i o ns , In c. i s t he s o l e s h areh o l d er o f RQ2

. A few d ay s l at er, o n Au g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 1 2 , th e St at e o f M i s s ou ri reco g n izedth at t he co rp o rat e reg i s trat i o n o f Rel i ab l e Co m m u n i cat i o n s , In c. h adl ap s ed

. 2 S ee M i s s o u ri On l i n e Bu s i nes s Fi l i n g, ath t tp: //b s d.s o s .m o .g o v, l as tv i si t edJ an uary5 , 2 0 1 5

. On ce t h e co m

p l ai ntan d an s wer were fi l ed i n t h i s cas e, b u tb efo re th e p art i es ’ J o i n t Prel i m i n ary St atu s Rep o rtwas fi l ed , th e at t o rn ey rep res en t i n g RQ2 req u es t edl eav e t o wi t h draw, ci t i n g n o np aym en t o f fees b y RQ2

. S ee M o t . o f J u ne 2 6 , 2 0 1 3 . Aft er m

u ch d el ay , RQ2 o b tai n ed n ew co u ns el

. See Ord er o f M arch 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 . M r. Grub b h as al l eg edth atRQ2 h as “ l o s t i t s b u s i n es s en t i rel y .” Grub b Decl . ¶ 1 08 . Aft er fu rt h er d el ay s , Defen d an t ’ s Co rrect edM ot i on fo r J u d g m en to n t h e Pl ead i n g s , o r, i n th e Al t ern at i v e, fo r Su m m ary J u d g m en ti n Fav o r o f th e Go v ern m en t , was s ubm it t edan di s n o w fu l l y b ri efed

. Th e g o v ern m en t’ s m o t i o n s wi l l b e d i s cu ss edi n d et ai l i n t h e an al y s i s s ect io n o f th is o p i n i on
. DI SCUSSI ON
I . Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew fo r J udg m ent o n the Pl ea di ng s Wh en th i s co u rtco n s i d ers d efen d an t ’ s “ m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en to n th e p l ead i n g s , each o f t h e wel l -p l edal l eg at i o n s i n th e co m p l ai n t [] i s as su m edt o b e co rrect , an dth e co u rtm

u s ti n du l g e al l reas o n ab l e i nferen ces i n fav or o f t h e p l ai n t i ff[] .” At l a s Co r

p
. v. Un i t ed

Stat es , 8 9 5 F.2 d7 4 5 , 7 4 9 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ) (ci t i n g S ch eu er v. Rh o des , 4 1 6 U.S. 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 (1 9 7 4 ), ab r og a ted o n o th er gr o u n d s b y Ha r l o w v. Fi t

z ger ald , 4 5 7 U.S. 8 0 0 (1 9 8 2 ); Owen v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 8 5 1 F.2 d 1 4 0 4 , 1 4 0 7 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 8 )). Th e co u rtap p l i es s ub s t an t i al ly th e s am e t es tas i t

2 / A supplemental filingidentifying a chang e in corporate disclosure information, required by

RCF C 7.1(b)(2), appears to be over two y ears overdue. 9does for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). See

Perez Acevedo v. Rivero Cubano , 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” (citing Curran v. Cousins , 509 F.3d 36, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2007))); Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co. , 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007) (“The standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”) (citation omitted); Peterson v. United States , 68 Fed. Cl. 773, 776 (2005) (“The legal standard applied to evaluate a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a motion to dismiss [under RCFC 12(b)(6)].”); see also Xianli Zhang v. United States , 640 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“When reviewing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to grant judgment on the pleadings under RCFC 12(c), ‘we apply the same standard of review as a case dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) . . . .’” (quoting Cary v. United States , 552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009))). “Factual allegations [in the complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( Twombly ) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs must go beyond “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, the court must not mistake legal conclusions presented in a complaint for factual allegations which are entitled to favorable inferences. See, e.g. , Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (“[W]e are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, “the court should only grant a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings if the defendant is clearly entitled to judgment on the basis of the facts as the plaintiff has presented them.” Owen , 851 F.2d at 1407. The court must inquire whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard described by the United States Supreme Court, i.e. , whether it adequately states a claim and provides a “showing [of] any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 563 (citations omitted). “To survive a motion [of this nature], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( Iqbal) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility is a context-specific inquiry. See, e.g. , id . at 679 (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

10ex p eri en ce an dco m m o n s en s e.”) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ).
Aft er acco rd in g al l reas o n ab l e i n feren ces t o t h e fact ual al leg at io n s o f t h e co m p l ai n t , “ [j] u d g m en to n t h e p l ead i n g s . . . i s ap p ro p ri at e wh ere t h ere are n o m at eri al fact s i n d i s p u t e an dth e [m o v an t ] i s en t i t l edt o ju d g m en tas a m at t er o f l aw.” New Zea l a n d

La mb Co

. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 4 0 F.3 d3 7 7 , 3 8 0 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 4) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A p art y m ay p res en tfact s o u t s i d e o f t h e p l ead i n gs wh en b ri n g i n g o r res i s t i n g a m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en to n th e p lead i n g s ; up on co n s i d erat i o n o f t h es e m at eri al s the co urt wo u l dth en treat t h e m ot i on as o n e fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en tu n d er RCFC 5 6 . RCFC 1 2 (d ).
I I . Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew fo r Sum m a ry J udg m ent

“ [S] u m m ary ju d g m en t i s a s al u tarym eth o d o f d i s p o si t i o n d es i g n edt o s ecu re t h e ju st , s p eed y

an di n ex p en si v e d et erm i n at i o n o f ev ery act i o n
. ” S wea t s Fa s h i o n s, In c. v. Pa n n i l l

Kn i t t i n g Co

. , 8 3 3 F.2 d 1 5 6 0 , 1 5 6 2 (Fed

. Ci r. 1 98 7 ) (i n t ern al qu o t at i o n s an dci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ). Th e p art y m o v i n g fo r s u m

m ary ju dg m en twi l l p rev ai l “ i f t h e m o van ts h ows th atth ere i s n o g enu i n e d i s p u t e as t o an y m at eri al fact an dth e m o v an ti s en t i t l ed t o ju d g m en tas a m at t er o f l aw.” RCFC 5 6 (a). A g en ui n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact i s o n e t h atco u l d“ affect th e o u tco m e” o f t h e l i ti g at i o n
. An d

er s o n v. Li b er t

y Lo b b y, In c. , 4 7 7 U.S. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (1 98 6 ).

“ Th e m o v i n g p art y

. . . n eedn o t p ro du ce ev id en ce s h o wi n g the ab s en ce o f a g en ui n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact b u trat h er m ay d is ch arg e i t s b u rd en b y s h o wi n g th e co u rtthatth ere i s an ab s en ce o f ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y ’ s cas e.” Da i ryl a nd Po wer Co o

p. v. Un it ed

Sta t es , 1 6 F.3 d1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 2 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ) (ci t i n g Cel o tex Co r

p. v. Ca tr et t , 4 7 7 U.S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 6 )). A s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o ti o n i s p ro p erl y

g ran t edag ai n s ta p art y

wh o fai l s t o m ak e a s h o wi ng s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h th e ex i s t en ce o f an es sen t i al el em en t t o th atp art y ’ s cas e an dfo r wh i ch t h atp art y b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro o f attri al

. Cel o t ex , 4 7 7 U.S. at3 2 4

. Th e Sup rem e Co u rth as i n s t ru ct edth at“ t h e m ere ex i s t en ce o f s o me al l eg ed fact ual d i s p u t e b et ween th e p art i es wi l l n o td efeatan o t h erwi s e p ro p erl y s up p o rt ed m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t ; th e req u i rem en ti s th atth ere b e n o g en u in e i s s u e o f ma t er i a l fact .” An d

er s o n , 4 7 7 U.S. at2 47 -4 8 . A n o n -m o van twi l l n o t d efeat a m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t“ u n l es s th ere i s s u ffi ci en tev i d en ce fav o ri n g th e n o n m o v i n g p art y

fo r a ju ry t o retu rn a v erd ictfo r t h atp art y .” Id

. at 2 4 9 (ci t at i o n

11o m it t ed ). “ A n o nm o v i n g p art y ’ s fai l u re o f p ro o f co n cern i ng th e ex i st en ce o f an

el em en tes s en t i al t o i t s cas e o n wh i ch th e n o n m o v i n g p art y wi ll b ear t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f attri al n eces s ari l y

ren d ers al l o t h er fact s i m m at eri al an d en t i t l es th e m o v i n g p art y t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw.” Da i ryl a n d , 1 6 F.3 dat 1 2 0 2 (ci t i n g Cel o tex , 4 7 7 U.S. at3 2 3).
I I I . Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew fo r Reques ts fo r Di s co very Under RCFC 5 6 (d) 3
RCFC 5 6 (d ) g ov ern s d i s co v ery affo rd edt o a p art y o p p o s i n g a s u m m ary ju d g m en tm o t io n:

W h en Fa ct s Ar e Un a va i l a b le t o th e No n mo va n t . If a n on m o v an t s ho ws b y

affi d av i to r d ecl arat io n th at , fo r s p eci fi edreas o n s , i tcan n o tp res en tfact s es s en t i al t o ju s t i fy i t s o pp o s it i o n , th e co u rt m ay : (1 ) d efer co n s id eri n g th e m ot i o n o r d en y i t ; (2 ) al l ow t i m e t o o b t ai n affi d av i t s o r d ecl arat i on s o r t o t ak e d is co v ery ; o r (3 ) i s s u e an y

o t h er ap p ro p ri at e o rd er. RCFC 5 6 (d ). Th e n on m o v an t wi l l g en eral l y b e g i v ena ch an ce t o co n du ct d i s co v ery th ati s reas o n ab l y

d i rect edt o o b t ai n i n g fact s es s en t ial t o i ts cas e. Op r yla n d US A In c. v. Gr ea t A m. Mu s i c S h o w, In c. , 9 7 0 F.2 d8 4 7, 8 5 2 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 2 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ); s ee Du n ki n ’ Do n u t s o f Am., In c. v. Meta l l u r

g i ca l Exo pr o d u ct s Co r p. , 8 4 0 F.2 d9 1 7 , 9 1 9 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 8 ) (v acat in g a g ran to f s u m m ary ju d g m en tb ecau s e n o o p p o rtu n it y fo r t he d i s co v ery o f p ert i n en tfact s was affo rd edth e n on m o v an t ). If a co n t i n u an ce i s g ran t edu nd er t h i s ru l e, t h e co u rt m u sten su re t h atth e n o n m o v an th as “ ad eq u at e t i m e fo r d i sco v ery .” Du n ki n ’ Do n u t s , 8 4 0 F.2 dat9 1 9 (ci t i n g Cel o t ex , 4 7 7 U.S. at3 2 2-2 3 ).
Th e o p p o rtun i t y

p ro v i d edb y

RCFC 5 6 (d ) t o co n du ctd i s co v ery wh i l e res i st i n g s u m

m ary ju d gm en ti s n o tu n l i m i t ed , h o wev er. Ru l e 5 6 (d ) “p ro v i d es fo r co m p arat i v el y l i m i t edd i s co v ery fo r t h e p urp o s e o f s h o wi n g fact s s u ffi ci en tt o wi t h s t an da s u m

m ary ju dg m en tm o t i o n .” Fi r

s t Na t ’l Ba n k o f Ar i z . v. Ci t i es S

er v.

3 / RCF C 56(d) was formerly RCF C 56(f); the languag e of the former rule was substantially similar but not identical to RCF C 56(d). 12Co. , 391 U.S. 253, 265 (1968). The non-moving party will not be allowed to

conduct discovery that has no chance of leading to the denial of summary judgment for the movant. See Simmons Oil Corp. v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. , 86 F.3d 1138, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (stating that a court may deny a motion for additional discovery if “‘there is no reason to believe that [the discovery requested] will lead to the denial of a pending motion for summary judgment’” (citing Pac. Serv. Stations Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 689 F.2d 1055, 1066 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982))). In particular, the court may deny the nonmovant discovery of facts which, because of prior court rulings, could not be of any use in resisting a pending summary judgment motion. See id. (citing Fleetwing Corp. v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 726 F.2d 768, 771 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983)); Wallace v. Brownell Pontiac GMC Co. , 703 F.2d 525, 528 (11th Cir. 1983) (“It would have been useless to continue discovery because the Fifth Circuit previously had decided the issue in question adversely to the appellants.”). There may be other criteria for ruling on a RCFC 56(d) motion, but precedential caselaw is sparse on this topic. See Flowers v. United States , 75 Fed. Cl. 615, 626 (2007) (stating that the Federal Circuit “has not established criteria to consider in evaluating a motion for discovery under RCFC 56([d])” (citing Theisen Vending Co. v. United States , 58 Fed. Cl. 194, 198 (2003))). This court interprets RCFC 56(d) liberally, in favor of the party resisting summary judgment. See, e.g. , News Publ’g Co. v. United States , 218 Ct. Cl. 712, 715 (1978) (citation omitted); Theisen Vending , 58 Fed. Cl. at 197 (citation omitted); Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States , 9 Cl. Ct. 503, 532 (1986) (stating that “we embrace with approval [t]he requirement of a liberal construction of Rule 56([d])”) (citations omitted); see also Monarch Assurance P.L.C. v. United States , 244 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (sanctioning additional discovery even where “the likelihood that plaintiffs can cobble together enough evidence to persuade the trial court . . . seems quite remote”). One primary question for the court to consider is whether the requested discovery will be necessary or relevant to the nonmovant’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. See Paalan v. United States , 57 Fed. Cl. 15, 18 (2003) (requiring that a plaintiff explain how the requested discovery materials “are relevant and necessary to the preparation of his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment”). In addition, discovery under this rule should be limited to the legal issues upon which the resolution of a motion for summary judgment will turn. E.g. , Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. United States , 72 Fed. Cl. 817, 819 (2006) (stating that discovery under the rule should be

13l i m i ted t o th e l eg al i s s u es p res en t edi n th e s u m m ary ju d g m en tm o ti o n ).
I V. Ana l y s i s A. RQ2 ’s Cl ai m s Th e co m p l ai n tfi l edi n t h i s cas e co n t ai n s t wo cl os el y -rel at edb reach o f i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract co un t s . Th e fi rs t co u n t i s l ab el ed b reach o f a co n t ract u al o b l i g at i o n t o “ n o tm ak e i n d ep en d en tco m m erci al u s e o r u n au th o ri zedd i s cl o s u re o f p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n s ubm i t t edt o th e USPS reg ard in g RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary Du al Lab el co ncep t .” Co m p l . ¶ 8 5 . Th e s eco n dco u n tas s ert s t hatUSPS m i s ap p ro p ri at edRQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el trad e s ecret , i d

. ¶ 9 6, b u tal s o rel i es up o n th e al l eg edi m

p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ract thatUSPS wo ul dn otd i s cl o s e o r m ak e u s e o f RQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el i d ea, i d

. ¶¶ 9 3 , 9 6 , 9 8

. As d efen d an tn o t es , th e two co u n t s i n th e co m p l ai n tal l eg e b reach o f an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract . Def.’ s M o t. at1 3 n .3 . Th e co u rtv i ews th e two co u n t s i n t h e co m pl ai n tas o v erl ap p i n g i f n o ti d en t i cal

. 4 Th e co u rtth erefo re refers t o th e cl ai m i n th e co m

p l ai nt as a cl ai m

fo r b reach o f ani m

p l i ed -i n-fact co n tract b et ween USPS an dRQ2 . Th e n atu re o f t h e b reach i s u n au t h o ri zedd i s cl o s u re an d u n au th o ri zed u s e b y

USPS o f RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary i nfo rm at i on
. Rat h er t h ans eekl eav e t o am en dth e co m p l ai n t , p l ai n t i ff p res en t edan ad d it i o n al , n ew cl ai m

i n i ts o p p o s i t i o n b ri ef. As a g en eral m at ter, cl ai m s rai s edi n res p o n s i v e b ri efi n g d o n o ts erv e t o am en da co m p l ai n t

. E.g

. , Mi ch el

s v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 7 2 Fed . Cl . 4 2 6 , 4 32 (2 0 0 6 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). As s u ch , RQ2 ’ s n ew

4 / The court notes that plaintiff’s opposition brief, too, describes this case as presenting issues of breach of an implied-in-fact contract between RQ2 and USPS. See, e.g. , Pl.’s Opp. at 2-3 (describing , in Statement of the I ssues paragraphs 1-3, breaches of a implied-in-fact contract), 10 (“USPS is liable for its breach of implied contract with RQ2 as a result of its conduct . . . manifestingan agreement between USPS and RQ2.”), 11 (“Thoug h the misappropriation of trade secrets is often considered to be a tort, USPS here is liable for that claim under the CDA because any oblig ation of the United States not to misuse any trade secrets arises from the implied contract created as part of the disclosure of the trade secret.”), 12 (“[ I ] t is clear by review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Defendant’s Answer that RQ2’s claim of breach of an implied in fact contract had been adequately pled, that the facts supporting those pleading s have been stated with specificity, and that those facts are not speculative.”). 14cl ai m , as p res en tedi n i t s o p p o s i t i o n b ri ef, i s n o tp ro perl y b efo re th e co u rt

. Id

. In t h e i n t eres t s o f ju d i ci al eco n o m y , h o wev er, t h e co u rtwi l l ad dres s th i s cl ai m as wel l as th e ch al len g e t o t hi s n ew cl ai m b ro u g h tb y

d efen d an t

. Pl ai n t i ff al l eg es i n th i s n ew cl ai m th atthe i m

pl i ed -i n -fact co n t ract b et ween USPS an dRQ2 co n t ai n s an ad d i t i o n al t erm – th at USPS p ro m i s edt o en g ag e RQ2 as a PRS p ro v i d er. S

ee Pl .’ s Op p . at2 (as s ert i n g th at“ RQ2 h as p leds u ffi ci en t n o n -s p ecu lat i v e fact s i n i t s Co m p l ai n tal l eg in g th atth e Un it edSt at es Po s t al Serv i ce b reach edan i m

p l i ed co n t ract i n fact wi t h RQ2 t o ap p ro v e RQ2 as th e t h i rd o n l y ev er Parcel Retu rn Serv i ce p ro v i d er”), 1 3 (as s ert i ng th at “ RQ2 n o to n l y ri gh t ly an t i ci p at ed , b utwas ab so l u t el y en t i t ledt o , earn rem

u n erat i on fo r i t s co n tract ual b arg ai n as t h e t h i rdev er ap p ro v edUSPS PRS v en d o r”); 2 2 (as sert i n g t h at“ USPS’ co n du ctcl earl y m an i fes t edan ag reem en tb et ween USPS an dRQ2 t o d ev el o p t h e RQ2 Du al Lab el Sy s t em ”), 2 2 (as sert i n g th at“ USPS . . . wo u l d p o s i t i on RQ2 as t h e t h i rdap p ro v edPRS v en d o r [s ] o RQ2 co u ldp ro fi tfro m th e RQ2 Du al Lab el . . . Sy s t em ”). Defen d an tp ers u as iv el y arg ues th atth e fact u al al l eg at i o n s i n th e co m

pl ai n tren d er t h i s n ew cl ai m s p ecu lat i v e, i m

p lau s i b l e an d u n t en ab le. Def.’ s Rep ly

at2 -5

. Th e fact s al l eg ed b y

p l ai n t i ff s h o w th at RQ2 h adco m m en ced an ap p ro v al p ro ces s wi t h USPS wh i ch req u i reda fi n al ap pl i cat io n ap pro v al fro m USPS an d wh i ch wo u l dcu l m i n at e i n an ex ecu t eds erv i ce ag reem en t b et ween th e t wo p art i es
. S ee Co m p l . ¶¶ 6 7 -6 8

. Th e n ew cl ai m p res en t edi n p l ai nt i ff’ s o pp o si t io n b ri ef, t h at USPS en t ered i n t o an i m

p l i ed -i n -fact co nt ract wi t h RQ2 ap p ro v in g RQ2 as a PRS p ro v id er i n ad v an ce o f an d i n l i eu o f i s s u i n g a fi n al ap p ro v al an dex ecu t in g a s erv i ce ag reem en t , i s n o t l eg al l y p l au s i b l e. S

ee, e.g
. , Pa c. Ga s & El ec. Co . v. Un i ted Sta t es , 3 Cl . Ct . 3 2 9 , 3 39 (1 9 8 3 ) (“ [I] n n eg o t i at i o ns wh ere t h e p art i es co n tem p l at e t h atth ei r co n t ract u al rel at i o n s h i p wo u l dari s e b y m ean s o f a wri t t en ag reem en t , n o co n t ract can b e i m p l i ed .”) (ci t at io n s o m it t ed ), a f f’d , 7 3 8 F.2 d4 5 2 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 4 ). Un d er t h e s t an d ardap pl i cab l e h ere, Iq b a l , 5 5 6 U.S. at6 7 8 , d efen d an ti s en t i t l edt o ju dg m en to n the p lead i n g s reg ard i n g an y s u ch cl ai m b ro u gh t b y

p l ai n t i ff, i f s uch a cl ai m

co ul d b e v i ewedas p ro perl y b efo re th e co u rt

. Th e co u rt n o w turn s t o p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m reg ard in g USPS’ s u n au t h o ri zed d i s cl os u re an du se o f RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n
. B. Ma teri a l s Outs ide the Pl ea di ng s Mus t Be Co ns idered to Res o l v e

15Defenda nt’s Cha l l eng e to RQ2 ’s Brea ch Cl a i m

In th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m as t o USPS’ s u n au t h o ri zedd i s cl o s u re an d u s e o f RQ2 ’ s p ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n t read s t h e l i ne b et ween p l au s i b i l i t y an d m ere s p ecu l at i o n. Defen d an targ u es , fo r ex am p l e, t h atRQ2 ’ s cl ai m

as t o b r ea ch o f a co n t ract u al dut y , o n l y o n e o f t h e fo u r req u i redel em en t s o f a b reach cl ai m , “ res t [s ] o n g ues s wo rkwh ol l y u n s up p o rt edb y

fact s .” Def.’ s M o t . at 1 4 . In es s en ce, d efen dan tas s ert s th atth e “ rep l i cat i on ” o f RQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el i d ea i n UPS’ s Fl ex i b l e Acces s an di n Fed Ex ’ s Sm art Po s ti s p u re s p ecu l at i o n
. Id

. Pl ai n t i ff’ s o p p os i ti o n b ri ef i s n o tp art i cu l arl y h el pfu l i n th i s reg ard . RQ2 rel i es o n g en eral i

p s e d i xi t p ro no u n cem en t s as t o th e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e fact u al al l eg at i o n s i n th e co m

pl ai n t

. See Pl .’ s Op p . at 2 -3 (s ug g es t i n g thatRQ2 ’ s
“ p ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n was n eces saryfo r UPS t o i m p lem en tan ex actdup l i cat e o f t h e RQ2 Du al Lab el Sy s tem wi t h USPS t wo y ears l at er”), 3 (s u g g es ti n g th at

“ t h e Un it edSt at es Po s t al Serv ice n eces s ari l y m u s th av e d i scl o s edRQ2 ’ s ad m i t t ed p ro p ri et ary

i n fo rm at i o n an dtrad e s ecret s t o UPS atl eas t ”), 1 7 (“ RQ2 arg u es th at t h e p l ead i n g s s t an d in g al o n e, wi t h o u t Defen d an th av i n g m as h edan dco n fu s edth e b as i s fo r t h e Ru l e 1 2 (c) m o t i on b y th e Defen d an t ’ s fact wi t n es s es are s uffi ci en tt o s u rv i v e Ru l e 1 2 (c) s cru t in y .”). Pl ai n t i ff al so rel i es o n ex h i b i t s an dd ecl arat i o n s s ub m i t t edb y t h e p art i es , wh i ch th e co u rtm ay d ecl i n e t o co n s i d er fo r t h e res o l u t i o n o f a m ot i o n b ro u g h t u n d er RCFC 1 2 (c). S ee RCFC 1 2(d ).
Th e co u rt ’ s an al y si s i s therefo re fo u n d ed , t o a l arg e ex ten t , o n th e co m p l ai n t an d d efen d an t ’ s cri t i ci sm o f t h e co m

p l ai n t . Acco rd in g t o d efen dan t , p l ai n t i ff’ s b reach al l eg at i o n s are n o tp l au s i b l e b ecau s e p l ai n t i ff’ s h y p o t h es i s reg ard i n g m i s ap p ro p ri at edp ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n rel i es up on a ch ai n o f h i g h l y s p ecu l at i v e ev en ts . Def.’ s Rep ly

at5 -6 . Th e g o v ern m en t ’ s arg um en ts are b u t t res s edwi t h ci t at i o n s t o M r. Grub b ’ s d ecl arat i o n , a d o cu m en t n o tco n t ai n ed wi t h in th e p l ead i n g s
. S

ee i d

. at6

. Defen d an tal so co m

p ares th e al l eg at i o n s i n RQ2 ’ s co m p lai n t t o t h e fact s al l eg edi n Two mb l

y . Def.’ s Rep l y

at7 -9 . Ho wev er, i n the co u rt ’ s v i ew, th e fact s i n thi s cas e are q u i t e d i fferen tfro m th o se i n Two m b l

y . As th e Sup rem e Co u rth as s t at ed , the i n qui ry

i n t o p l au si b il i t y

i s a co n t ex t -s p eci fi c i n qui ry
. Iq b a l , 5 5 6 U.S. at 6 7 9 . Th e fact s i n Two mb l yare n o ts u ffi ci en t l y

an al o go u s t o res o l v e th e RCFC 1 2 (c) m ot i o n i n t h i s cas e.

16Hav i n g dul y co n s id ered th e co m

p l ai n t ’ s fact u al al l eg at i o n s an dth e b reach cl ai m , an dh av i n g affo rd ed al l fav o rab l e i n feren ces t o the fact u al al l eg at i o n s i n th e co m p l ai n t , as i tm

u s t , th e co u rtco n cl u d es th atRQ2 ’ s cl ai m i s p l au s i b le, i f o n l y b arel y s o. To fu rt h er t es tRQ2 ’ s cl ai m , th e co u rt wo u l d n eedt o co n s i d er m at eri al s o u t s i d e t h e p l ead i n g s . Becau s e s u ch co n s i d erat i o n wo u ld b ri n g th e co u rt ’ s rev i ew o u t s i d e t h e am

b i t o f RCFC 1 2 (c), s ee RCFC 1 2 (d ), d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en to n th e p l ead in g s , ex cep tas t o ju d g m en t o n th e “ n ew” cl ai m fo r b reach o f an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n t ract t o ap p ro v e RQ2 as a PRS p ro v i d er, m u s t b e d en i ed

. C. Sum m a ry J udg m ent Sho ul d Be Deferred Pendi ng Li m i ted, Ta rg eted Di s co v ery Th e co u rt al s o h as b efo re i td efen d an t ’ s m o t i on fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t , wh i ch rel i es o n t h ree d ecl arat i o n s as wel l as ex hi b i t s at t ach ed t h eret o . Th e co u rt wi l l n o treco u n tthe s p eci fi cs o f d efen d an t ’ s arg um en t s , b u tn o t es t h atth e ev i d en ce rel i edup o n b y d efen d an tcal l s i n t o qu es t i o n wh et h er RQ2 ’ s Du al Lab el Sy s t em was i n d eedn o v el , an d wh et h er t h e du al l ab el co n cep tan drel at edt ech n o l o g y were al read y i n u s e i n th e m ark etb y

th e t i m e RQ2 d i s cl os edi t s s y s tem t o USPS. Def.’ s M o t . at 1 6 . Of p art icu l ar n ot e i s a d ecl arat i on th at av ers th at UPS al read y h ada l i ke co n cep tan dt ech n o lo g y b efo re RQ2 i s s ai d t o h av e d is cl os edi t s s y s t em t o USPS. Def.’ s M o t . Ex . 3 ¶¶ 1 0, 1 2 (Sh ep h erdW es tDecl .). No n e o f t h e ev i d en ce s ub m i t t edb y RQ2 th u s far i s s uffi ci en tt o creat e a g en u i ne i s s u e o f m at eri al facto n t h i s i s s u e. S

ee Def.’ s Rep l y

at1 3 (d i s cu s s i n g th e d ecl arat io n o f M r. Grub b an d co n cl u d in g th at“ Mr. Grub b effect iv el y d oes n o tch al l en g e M s . Sh ep herd W es t ’ s d ecl arat io n , u nd ers co ri n g t h at s u m m ary ju d gm en ti s warran t ed ”).
Pl ai n t i ff arg ues th ats u m

m ary ju d gm en ti s n otwarran t edo n th e reco rd b efo re t h e co u rt

. Pl .’ s Op p . at2 8 . Th e co u rtn eed n o td eci d e th e i ss u e atth i s p o i n t , b ecau s e p l ai n t iff h as al s o req u es t edd is co v ery i n o rd er t o res i s ts u m

m ary ju d g m en t

. 5 Id

. at4 , 1 4 , 1 7 , 2 8 -2 9 . Pl ai n t i ff fram es i t s d i s co v ery req u es tb ro ad l y : Di s co v ery

o n the s ev eral g erm an e qu es ti on s o f fact that . . . are n o w wi t hi n t h e ex cl u s i v e co n t ro l o f USPS, m ay u neart h p ro o f an drel ev an tev i den ce s ub s t an t i at i n g t h e

5 / Had plaintiff not requested discovery, the court notes that the g overnment has set forth a strongargument for summary judg ment. 17RQ2 ci rcu m s t an t i al ev id en ce o f m u lt i p l e co n t ract b reach es
. Id

. at2 9 ; s ee a l

s o i d

. at 14 (“ [I] ti s res p ect fu l ly s ub m it t edth at Ru l e 5 6 d eci s i o n s h o u ldb e d eferred u n t i l fu rt h er d i s co v ery i s h ado n th e i s s u es o f USPS’ h an d l i n g o f t h e RQ2 Du al Lab el Sy s tem i n fo rm at io n , th e y etu n res o l vedRQ2 PRS ap p li cat io n , the u nkn o wn /u n st at edreas o n s fo r USPS t erm i n at i on o f al l co m m u n icat io ns wi t h RQ2 an d a h o s t o f o t h er g erm an e qu es ti o n s rel ev an t t o th i s d i s p u t e.”).
Defen d an ts u g g es t s th atd i s co v ery wo u l db e was t efu l an dfu t i l e. Def.’ s Rep ly at1 5 . Al th o u g h th e co u rtco n ced es th atd efen d an t ma yb e ri g h t , requ es t s fo r d i s co v ery

u n d er RCFC 5 6 (d ) are l i b eral l y g ran t ed

. E.g

. , Th eis en Ven di n g , 5 8 Fed

. Cl

. at1 9 7 . Defen d an ti s o n fi rm er g ro un dwh en t h e g o v ern m en tco n ten d s t h atp l ai n t i ff’ s b ro add i s co v ery req u es ti n di cat es that“ RQ2 m ak es cl ear t h ati t s eek s t o en g ag e i n a cl as s i c fi s h i n g ex p ed i t i o n t h ro u g h USPS’ s n at io n wi d e wo rk fo rce i n an at t em

p t t o fi n dev i d en ce t o s up p o rti t s s pecu lat i v e cl ai m s .” Def.’ s Rep ly at1 5 . Th e co u rtm

u stag ree wi t h d efen d an t t h at p l ai n t i ff’ s o p p os i t i o n b ri ef i n d i cat es th atRQ2 “ s eek s t o p u rs u e d i s co v ery o n far-ran g i n g an dqu es t i o n ab l e t o p i cs .” Id

. Th e p ro p er res o l u t i on o f p l ai n t i ff’ s b ro adreq u es tfo r d i s co v ery i s t o n arro wl y t ai l o r d i sco veryt o th e m at eri al i s s u e t hatm ig h t p rev en ts u m m ary ju d g m en tfo r t h e g o v ern m en t

. E.g

. , Si mmo n s Oi l , 8 6 F.3 d at1 1 4 4. In th i s cas e, t h e d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e accu rat el y h i g h l i g h t ed b y

th e g o v ern m en ti s wh et h er UPS al read y p o s s es s edth e co n cep tan dt ech no l o g y fo r i t s du al l ab el s y s t em t hatb ecam e Fl ex i b l e Acces s , b efo re RQ2 al l eg ed l y s h ared i t s co n cep tan dt ech n o l o g y wi t h USPS. Defen dan ts u g g es t s that , i n p ract ical t erm s , the p art i es ’ d i s co v ery s h o u l d t h erefo re b e l i m i t edt o t h e rel ev an tfact u al co nt en t i o n s i n th e d ecl arat i o n s ub m i t t ed b y M s . Li n d a Sh ep h erdW es to f UPS. S ee Def.’ s M ot . Ex . 3 . Th e co u rtag rees
. 6
CONCLUSI ON

6 / At this point in the dispute, the court encourag es plaintiff to carefully weig hthe costs of discovery , as well as the costs of opposing a renewed summary judg ment motion, ag ainst RQ2’s prospects of success on its claim. 18Fo r t h es e reas on s , i t is h ereb y ORDERED th at : (1 ) Defen d an t ’ s Co rrect edM o t i o n fo r J u dg m en t o n t h e Pl ead in g s , fi l ed J u n e 9 , 2 0 1 4 , i s GRANTED i n pa rt , as t o p l ai n t iff’ s co n t en t i o n th at an i m p l i ed -i n -fact co n tract t o ap p ro v e RQ2 as a PRS p ro v i d er was fo rm edb et ween p l ai n t iff an dthe Un i t edSt at es , an d DENI ED i n pa rt , as t o p l ai n t iff’ s co n t en ti o n th atan i m p li ed -i n-fact co n t ract co n cern i n g th e g o v ern m en t ’ s d i s cl o su re an du se o f p l ai n t i ff’ s p ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n was b reach ed ; (2 ) Defen d an t ’ s M o ti o n , i n th e Al t ern at i v e, fo r Su m m ary J ud g m en ti n Fav o r o f t h e Go vern m en t , fi ledJ u n e 9 , 2 0 1 4, i s D EFERRED p en d i n g t arg et edd i s co v ery l i m i t edi n s co p e t o th e rel ev an tfact u al co n t en t i o ns i n the d ecl arat io n s ub m i t t edb y M s . Li nd a Sh ep h erdW es t o f UPS; an d, (3 ) Ono r b efo re Februa ry 6 , 2 0 1 5 , th e p art i es s hal l FI LE a J oi nt Pro po s ed Li m i ted Di s co v ery Schedul e
.

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

19