Court Opinion

ID: 9370872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 21:01:40.857381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.427807
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                         No. 22-1932
                                  (Filed: 14 February 2023)
                                  NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************
TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE, LLC,               *
                                        *
                  Plaintiff,            *
                                        *
v.                                      *
                                        *
THE UNITED STATES,                      *
                                        *
                  Defendant,            *
                                        *
and                                     *
                                        *
FIVE STONES RESEARCH CORP.,             *
                                        *
                  Defendant-Intervenor. *
                                        *
***************************************

                                            ORDER

        On 30 December 2022, plaintiff Two Knights Defense, LLC filed under seal its
complaint in this post-award bid protest, ECF No. 1. Following the status conference held on 11
January 2023, the Court entered a briefing schedule for forthcoming motions for judgment on the
administrative record, ECF No. 15. On 23 January 2023, and in accordance with the scheduling
order, the government served the administrative record to the parties through a file-sharing
program and filed a notice of the filing of the administrative record, ECF No. 30. On 7 February
2023, the government moved to correct the administrative record, ECF No. 31, which the Court
granted on the same day. On 9 February 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ECF No.
33. On 13 February 2023, the Court struck plaintiff’s amended complaint as deficient because
plaintiff did not ask for leave to file the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), ECF No. 35. The same day, plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint (“Mot. to Amend Compl.”), ECF No.
36.

        RCFC 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend “with opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” The Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” RCFC 15(a)(2).
When a party amends its complaint to include allegations it could not have made prior to
examining the administrative record, the Court should grant leave. See Knowledge Connections,
Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 6, 8 (2007) (citing Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins, 11
F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting the federal rules “are quite permissive in permitting a
party to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence and to the positions taken at trial”))
(granting leave to amend the complaint after the administrative record was filed). Plaintiff seeks
to add three counts to the complaint based on the administrative record not available at the initial
time of filing. See Mot. to Amend Compl. at 1–2. The government and intervenor do not oppose
the amendment. Id. at 2. As plaintiff did not have access to the full administrative record prior
to filing its initial complaint and the parties do not oppose the amendment, the Court grants leave
to amend the complaint. See Knowledge Connections, Inc., 76 Fed. Cl. 6 (citing Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center, 11 F.3d at 1582 (noting the federal rules “are quite permissive in permitting a
party to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence and to the positions taken at trial”))
(granting leave to amend the complaint after the administrative record was filed); RCFC
15(a)(2).

      The Court accordingly GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its amended
complaint, ECF No. 36; plaintiff SHALL FILE its amended complaint by 17 February 2023.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                     s/ Ryan T. Holte
                                                     RYAN T. HOLTE
                                                     Judge

                                               -2-