__________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE: November 18, 1994 __________________________________________________ GSBCA 12540 CLEVELAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Carl E. Anderson of Walter & Haverfield, Cleveland, OH, counsel for Appellant. Julia C. Allen, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DeGRAFF, and GOODMAN. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Cleveland Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) contracted with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide a variety of services at a federal building. During the course of the contract, GSA made several deductions from CTC's monthly payments. In this appeal, CTC alleges that the deduction taken in July 1993 was not warranted. GSA moves to dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, and we grant the motion. Findings of Fact On August 17, 1993, CTC filed a notice of appeal. On August 18, 1993, the presiding judge ordered CTC to file its complaint by September 20, 1993. CTC failed to file its complaint and, on September 24, 1993, the presiding judge ordered CTC to file its complaint not later than October 8, 1993. CTC failed to file its complaint and, on October 22, 1993, the presiding judge ordered CTC to file its complaint not later than November 5, 1993, or show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. CTC filed its complaint on November 4, 1993. On December 17, 1993, the parties asked that the Board suspend proceedings until March 16, 1994, so that they could discuss settlement. On December 17, 1993, the presiding judge suspended proceedings, and ordered the parties to file status reports on March 17, 1994, suggesting further proceedings. CTC did not file a status report. GSA's status report states that the parties were not able to settle the case, so the presiding judge entered an order on March 22, 1994, directing the parties to state whether they wanted a hearing, and to suggest dates for completing discovery. The March 22, 1994 order also directed CTC to submit its supplemental appeal file not later than May 19, 1994. On April 21, 1994, based upon the parties' preferences, the presiding judge entered an order that established a discovery schedule and a briefing schedule. On August 26, 1994, GSA served CTC with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. CTC's responses were due to be served September 26, 1994, according to Rule 17. CTC did not serve GSA with any responses. October 5, 1994 Affidavit of Julia C. Allen. On October 12, 1994, GSA filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Rule 18. As grounds for its motion, GSA relies upon CTC's failure to provide responses to GSA's discovery requests. GSA also relies upon the fact that CTC did not submit a supplemental appeal file and did not serve GSA with any discovery requests. On October 13, 1994, the presiding judge ordered CTC to respond to GSA's motion to dismiss by November 1, 1994. This is the time permitted by Rule 8(f). We received nothing from CTC on November 1, 1994, or any later date. On November 2, 1994, the presiding judge issued an order to show cause. The order directs CTC to respond to GSA's motion to dismiss by November 16, 1994, or to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. We received nothing from CTC on November 16, 1994, or any later date. On November 17, 1994, GSA informed us that it has not received any responses to its discovery requests, any response to its motion to dismiss, or any response to the order to show cause. November 17, 1994 letter from Julia C. Allen. Discussion Dismissal of a case is permitted when a party fails to comply with any direction or order of the Board. Rule 18(b). The fact that CTC did not submit a supplement to the appeal file does not support dismissal of this appeal, because Rule 4(b) requires CTC to supplement the appeal file only if it believes that all relevant documents have not been included in the file. Perhaps CTC did not believe that any additional relevant documents were needed in the file. Similarly, the fact that CTC did not serve GSA with discovery requests does not support dismissal of this appeal, because CTC was entitled, not required, to conduct discovery. Dismissal of this case is warranted because CTC did not respond to GSA's discovery within the time permitted by the Board's rules; did not respond to GSA's motion to dismiss by November 1, 1994, as required by the Board's rules and as ordered by the Board; did not respond to GSA's motion to dismiss by November 16, 1994 as ordered by the Board; and did not respond to the Board's order to show cause. CTC has been provided with several opportunities to pursue this appeal, and CTC has not made any effort to take advantage of these opportunities. CTC has not given us any indication that it wishes to comply with our orders and rules, and without such compliance we will not be able to consider the merits of this appeal. In such circumstances, dismissal, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute, is appropriate. Notter, Feingold & Alexander, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11908, 94-2 BCA 26,622 (1993); Protech International v. Department of Commerce, GSBCA 11104-COM, 93-1 BCA 25,481 (1992). Decision The appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. _____________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _______________________________ ______________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge