CBCA 7999

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY GRANTED IN PART: February 20, 2025 CBCA 7999 NOMUDA, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. Dilyn Loveless and Timothy J. Turner of Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C., Denver, CO; and Chase Tanner Tavernier of Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C., Lakewood, CO, counsel for Appellant. Matthew Lane and Katlyn Har, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. CHADWICK, Board Judge. CBCA 7999 2 ORDER1 Appellant, NoMuda, Inc. (NoMuda), moves for a forty-five-day extension of discovery, which ended on February 7, 2025. Respondent, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), opposes. We grant NoMuda’s motion in part. Background NoMuda alleges in its amended complaint that, while performing as a third-tier subcontractor on a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) training project, it became a direct contractor to FEMA as a result of promises made by a FEMA management employee (Ms. Bonilla). See NoMuda, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 7999, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,662, at 187,943–44; NoMuda, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 7999, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,656, at 187,919. After ruling on motions, the Board ordered in November 2024, in part, as follows: An initial period of limited discovery may begin now and will end Friday, February 7, 2025. Each party may serve up to ten interrogatories and take up to three depositions absent leave of the Board. Document requests and requests for admission, if any, are not expressly limited but should be reasonable in number and focused on the issues. Discovery disputes may be raised by joint letter or by motion under Rule 13(e). The primary relevant issue at this time is Ms. Bonilla’s contracting authority. In the interest of using time efficiently, respondent may conduct similarly focused discovery into appellant’s corporate history, identity, and personnel, including contracting authority. NoMuda propounded discovery on January 7, 2025, thirty-one days before the scheduled end of the initial period of limited discovery.2 NoMuda served ten interrogatories, 1 This order is being published to assist in providing greater transparency to the public about how the Board addresses issues. Although single-judge orders like this one are binding in the appeals in which they are issued, they are, consistent with Board Rule 1(d) (48 CFR 6101.1(d) (2024)), not precedential in other appeals before the Board. 2 NoMuda says it waited until almost the last day for written discovery requests, see Rule 14(b), (c), (d)(2) (allowing thirty days to respond), because it needed time to analyze information obtained by a NoMuda officer, who has the same counsel, in private litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In that case, the CBCA 7999 3 twenty-nine requests for production of documents, and twenty-four requests for admission, and sought three depositions, including one of a party representative and two of non-party witnesses.3 Significantly, we do not have before us a motion to resolve any DHS objections to this discovery or to compel responses. NoMuda focuses in its motion on what happened (or failed to happen) regarding the depositions. By email on January 7, followed up on January 16 and 19 (the latter a Sunday), DHS counsel asked for clarification as to whether it was NoMuda’s “position” that the discovery it sought was “in compliance with the Board’s direction of ‘limited discovery’ regarding the issue of ‘Ms. Bonilla’s contracting authority.’” NoMuda finally responded on January 22, confirming that it “intend[ed] to take advantage of the three depositions” allowed. DHS counsel promptly responded that he would discuss “scheduling any appropriate depositions with appropriate limitations as to their scope.