Full text
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-365
(Filed: June 26, 2024)
AIRBOSS DEFENSE GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
and
STRING KING LACROSSE LLC,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
NEW YORK EMBROIDERY
STUDIO, INC.
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
On June 25, 2024, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor each filed a motion for leave to file a
reply in support of plaintiff-intervenor’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion
for preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 66, 67. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor assert good cause
exists for filing their replies given that the government’s supplemental response relied on new
factual documentation and arguments to which plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor should have an
opportunity to respond. ECF No. 66 at 1-2; ECF No. 67 at 2.
Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor indicate they have conferred with counsel for the
government and defendant-intervenor, and that while the government does not object to the filing
of these replies, defendant-intervenor does object. ECF No. 66 at 2; ECF No. 67 at 1.
Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH Document 69 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 2
2
For good cause shown, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor’s motions for leave to file their
replies are GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor are DIRECTED to re-
file their replies as separate docket entries.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ Charles F. Lettow
Charles F. Lettow
Senior Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH Document 69 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 2