CBCA 5272-R

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: April 4, 2022 CBCA 5272-R UNITED FACILITY SERVICES CORPORATION dba EASTCO BUILDING SERVICES, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. William Weisberg of Law Offices of William Weisberg PLLC, McLean, VA, counsel for Appellant. Brett A. Pisciotta and Kristi Singleton, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LESTER, SHERIDAN, and ZISCHKAU. LESTER, Board Judge. Appellant, United Facilities Services Corporation doing business as Eastco Building Services (Eastco), requests that we reconsider our decision dated February 16, 2022, dismissing this appeal for failure to prosecute. As the basis for its request, Eastco once again cites difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic for its failure to respond to interrogatories that respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), served on May 6, 2021. Eastco, however, again provides no specific details about the reasons for its inability to respond, either fully or partially, to interrogatories that were served eleven months ago and does not mention its failure to respond to the Board’s prior show cause CBCA 5272-R 2 order. Merely citing the word “COVID,” without more, does not provide a basis for excusing a failure to respond to discovery or to the Board’s orders. In our decision dismissing this appeal, we criticized Eastco’s failure to provide any details about its efforts to respond to the interrogatories or to explain the reasons that COVID-19 rendered its employees unable to respond either in whole or in part. Because Eastco continues to provide no such information in its request for reconsideration, Eastco’s request is denied. Discussion The Board is sensitive to the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had and continues to have on litigants and attorneys, and it has granted extensive accommodations to parties when justified. Those accommodations are evident in this case from the chronology of events identified in the decision that Eastco is asking us to reconsider. In its request for reconsideration, Eastco’s counsel again tells us that COVID-19 has created “significant challenges” for Eastco, Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration (Mar. 18, 2022) at 2, but, like in its response to GSA’s motion to dismiss, Eastco provides no details about how the pandemic precluded Eastco from responding to interrogatories. Eastco’s counsel represents that Eastco “is a critical, front-line business” with “a workforce that was among the hardest hit by COVID” and that staffing and supply chain issues “literally consumed all of the small management staff’s time and attention,” id., but provides no declarations from Eastco employees or more detailed explanations in support. In our prior show cause order, dated December 1, 2021 (to which Eastco never responded), we directed Eastco to detail its efforts to attempt to develop responses to the interrogatories, and, even now, Eastco provides no explanation. “[S]imply say[ing] the word ‘COVID-19’ [is not], in and of itself, . . . justification to excuse delays and dereliction without providing any support.” Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 336 F.R.D. 183, 188 (S.D. Cal. 2020). “While the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could conceivably present extraordinary circumstances,” a party cannot excuse its delays in meeting its litigation obligations “simply by making a passing reference to the pandemic or the resulting lockdown.” Hines v. United States, No. 17-CR-364-2, 2021 WL 2456679, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2021) (citation omitted); see Curran v. Bernhardt, No. 5:20-CV- 05009-JLV, 2022 WL 93671, at *6 (D.S.D. Jan. 10, 2022) (“While the court understands the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is no excuse to delay any sort of [discovery] response for nine months.”); Adriaenssens v. Jimenez, No. A-3744-20, 2022 WL 533314, at *3 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Feb.