Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Freddie Mac Sets Release Date for Second Quarter 2015 Financial Results.....Pre-market, August 4, 2015.
July 30, 2015 16:15 ET
MCLEAN, VA--(Marketwired - Jul 30, 2015) - Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) announced today that it plans to report its second quarter 2015 financial results before the U.S. financial markets open on Tuesday, August 4, 2015.
The company will hold a conference call at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time (ET) on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, to discuss the company's results with the media. The conference call will be concurrently webcast.
To access the live audio webcast, use the following link http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=102689. The replay will be available on the company's website at www.FreddieMac.com/investors.
All materials related to the call will be available on the Investor Relations page of the company's website at www.FreddieMac.com/investors.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Today Freddie Mac is making home possible for approximately one in four home borrowers and is one of the largest sources of financing for multifamily housing. Additional information is available at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac's blog FreddieMac.com/blog.
Freddie Mac Sets Release Date for Second Quarter 2015 Financial Results
Looks like Ackman (Rafter et al v. USA) got a new shiny Attorney of Record yesterday.
Gregory P. Joseph is in and Lawrence David Rosenberg is out as Attorney of Record.
Little something on Joseph...
World Finance interviews Gregory P Joseph
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 12 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 2
CONSENTED MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Gregory P. Joseph hereby moves the court to be substituted as attorney of record for
Plaintiffs Louise Rafter, Josephine Rattien, Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. in the above-styled case. Per Rule 83.1(c)(4) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims, the following documents are provided:
1. A declaration by Gregory P. Joseph stating that he has been retained as attorney in
this matter. See Exhibit 1.
2. The written consent for substitution of attorney by the previous attorney of record.
See Exhibit 2.
WHEREFORE, Gregory P. Joseph moves that the Court recognize him as the attorney of
record.
Dated: July29, 2015
DECLARATION OF APPOINTMENT
I, Gregory P. Joseph, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1476 that:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Federal
Claims.
2. Louise Rafter, Josephine Rattien, Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. have retained me as new attorney of record in this matter.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 29, 2015.
Thanks D1 & hv.
Maybe there's a temp glitch in my adobe software. I tried to view as well and it wouldn't work. May just have to reboot.
Oh well, anything of importance worth noting please let us know.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the help hv. It's 3 different documents totaling 22 pages (2,10,10). I paid for it and downloaded it, but it says the file is damaged somehow.
D1, Fairholme just filed their response that was due today (doc #215), but I can't get it to download for some reason. Say's my pdf software is not compatible, but it's always worked before. If you (or anyone else) can get it from pacer feel free to download here.
TIA
Shelby loses. Committee just voted and the no's have it 16 to 14. Good news for us for now.
Sweeney Grants Plaintiffs their requested 5 days in which to file a proposed amended protective order...
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 214 Filed 07/23/15 (9am) Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 13-465C
(Filed: July 23, 2015)
*************************************
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time, seeking an additional five days in which to file a proposed amended
protective order (pursuant to the court’s July 10, 2015 order in Cacciapalle v. United States, no.
13-466C (consolidated)). Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the
proposed amended protective order by no later than Monday, July 27, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
The GSE Greek-to-Sheikh connection speaks again. lol
Like I said...no stinking corner piece...more like blue sky.
Nice, here comes 2.54. Edit...There WAS a lot of trash to work thru between 2.48-58 imo.
Good stuff, D1. Just in time for the EOD push thru $2.53.
Yep. Yesterday about 4M shares went through in about 20 or so large block trades with an average price of about $2.50. I would assume this is prearranged through the MM of the buyers choice.
Same thing is happening today. Someone is definitely accumulating similar to Ackman & Berk back in late 2013. Maybe not as big, but still accumulating. If this continues for a few weeks we will see $3-4 easy imo.
Yup....just another piece of the puzzle. And this ain't no stinky easy corner piece either....More like a blue sky piece.
AND HERE COME THE ORDERS FROM JUDGE SWEENEY...
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 212 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 13-465C
(Filed: July 21, 2015)
*************************************
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
On July 20, 2015, plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed a motion for leave to file
certain materials designated as “protected information” under seal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) and the United States District
Court of the District of Columbia. The court finds no need to await a response from defendant to
plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are (1) authorized to file under seal in the D.C. Circuit certain protected
materials contained in the appendix attached to their motion, which were disclosed to plaintiffs
through discovery in this case; (2) granted the general authority to file the protected information
disclosed in this case under seal in the D.C. Circuit, and (3) authorized to file under seal in
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 13-1053 (D.D.C.), the protected
information disclosed in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
590000 share trade just went through at $2.52.
Today's action reminds me a little of when Ackman starting taking his position in Sept. of 2013. Let's see if it continues over the next few weeks or not.
That was my thought as well. I was hoping to see some of his hedge buds jump on board the FnF train after the Conference. Maybe some are starting to, as someone with $2.5M+ to spend in one transaction surely just did.
D1, I agree. Nice to see the big buys and hopefully they continue!
I agree Cap'n. She not only works at Fannie Mae, she works in INVESTOR RELATIONS. I wouldn't be surprised if they were related.
Someone should tweet him to see why he is buying FnF commons now.
Nice work John Deere, NavyCmdr & D1.....
Katherine Constantinou
Manager, at Fannie Mae
Manager, Investor Relations
Fannie Mae
hmm....relative (dad/brother/uncle) buying stock now?
Maybe someone that tweets can chat him up and find out why he's buying now?
Ron, I hope you don't perceive this as me picking on you because you actually seem like a decent guy, but it would be nice if you're going to keep posting my paid for pacer docs in different places over the internet that you would at least give credit to the source instead of letting folks think you're paying for and doing the work to get them yourself. Just sayin'.
It's just a common courtesy and like I said, you seem like a decent guy. Hecht, I'm actually probably buds with some of your previous Skippers, Admirals.
TIA
It is stayed through Fairholme discovery, at least. So, basically it's waiting to see what Sweeney does with Fairholme, then it will proceed accordingly.
SWEENY GRANTS ORDER FOR RAFTER (ACKMAN) TO USE FAIRHOLME CASE DOCS...
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 11 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 14-740 C
(Filed: July 16, 2015)
*************************************
LOUISE RAFTER et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
The above-captioned case is currently stayed pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, 13-465C, a related case. Plaintiffs have now filed an unopposed motion requesting a partial lift of the stay and seeking limited jurisdictional discovery. The court hereby GRANTS the following relief regarding jurisdictional discovery:
• Documents produced during jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that are subject to the protective order in that case may be used in Rafter in accordance with the restrictions of the protective order.
• Documents produced during jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that counsel for Rafter seek shall only be provided in electronic form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 11 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 1
SWEENEY GIVES GOVT 14 DAYS EXTRA (INSTEAD OF 21)...SAYS RESPOND BY AUGUST 10TH.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 13-465C
(Filed: July 15, 2015)
*************************************
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
The New York Times Company has filed a motion to intervene and for the de-designation of jurisdictional discovery materials in the above-captioned case. Defendant has filed a motion for an extension of time to, and including, August 17, 2015, to respond. The New York Times opposes any extension beyond July 27, 2015. The court has reviewed defendant’s motion for an extension of time and concludes that defendant’s request is reasonable, but not the amount of time requested. Consequently, the court GRANTS IN PART defendant’s motion; its response shall be filed by no later than Monday, August 10, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 209 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 208 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 1
ORDER
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case have filed several motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery. The court has now received motions from defendant, Grant Thornton LLP, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Deloitte & Touche LLP. These motions request an extension of time to, and including, August 17, 2015, to file their respective responses to plaintiffs’ motions. Plaintiffs oppose extensions to file responses beyond July 27, 2015. The court has reviewed the pending motions for extensions of time and concludes that the bases articulated for the requests are reasonable, but not the amount of time requested. Consequently, the court GRANTS IN PART these motions; the responses shall be filed by no later than Monday, August 10, 2015.
In addition, the court VACATES its July 8, 2015 order setting a status conference for August 13, 2015. Within seven days of the reply memoranda being filed with respect to these motions, the parties shall confer and contact chambers to propose convenient dates for a status conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case have filed several motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery. The court has now received motions from defendant, Grant Thornton LLP, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Deloitte & Touche LLP. These motions request an extension of time to, and including, August 17, 2015, to file their respective responses to plaintiffs’ motions. Plaintiffs oppose extensions to file responses beyond July 27, 2015. The court has reviewed the pending motions for extensions of time and concludes that the bases articulated for the requests are reasonable, but not the amount of time requested. Consequently, the court GRANTS IN PART these motions; the responses shall be filed by no later than Monday, August 10, 2015.
Ackman (Rafter) just filed a motion For Limited Participation In Discovery from Fairholme case.
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 10 Filed 07/15/15 (5:55pm)Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Louise Rafter, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The United States,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:14-cv-740
Judge Margaret M. Sweeney
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Limited Participation In Discovery
On July 10, 2015, this Court entered an order partially lifting the stays entered
in four cases (Cacciapalle v. United States (13-466C), Washington Federal, Inc. v.
United States (13-385C), Reid v. United States (14-152C), and Fisher v. United
States (13-608C)) and granting the plaintiffs in those cases limited participation in
the discovery in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States (13-465C). Order,
Cacciapalle (July 10, 2015), Dkt. No. 59 (“Disc. Order”). During a telephonic hearing
that same day, the Court stated that it would entertain a motion for similar relief in
this related case. In accordance with the Court’s statement and its Discovery Order,
Plaintiffs Louise Rafter, Josephine and Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. (“Rafter Plaintiffs”) now respectfully request the right to
participate in the Fairholme discovery, solely for purposes of accessing and using
electronic copies of all discovery materials and documents produced in that case,
without prejudice to the Rafter Plaintiffs’ right to seek additional discovery as may
be necessary after the Fairholme discovery concludes.
Undersigned counsel has consulted with counsel for the Government and
Fairholme. The Government does not oppose the Rafter Plaintiffs’ request for access
to and use of electronic copies of all discovery documents produced in Fairholme.
The Government also recognizes that the Rafter Plaintiffs have a right to request
1
additional discovery (to the extent necessary) after the close of discovery in
Fairholme, while it does not consent to additional discovery at this time. Counsel for
Fairholme also does not oppose the Rafter Plaintiffs’ request for limited participation
in the ongoing discovery in their case.
The Court is familiar with these related cases, which challenge the Government’s
conduct in connection with the conservatorships of the Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(“Freddie Mac”). The Government has moved to dismiss the Fairholme,
Cacciapalle, Washington Federal, and Fisher complaints.1 The Court then suspended
briefing on the Government’s motion in Fairholme pending discovery, and stayed
the remaining cases pending the completion of that discovery. The plaintiffs subject
to the Discovery Order entered last week are now permitted to participate in the
discovery as follows:
? the plaintiffs in Cacciapalle can ask up to one hour’s worth of questions in
each deposition, seek to depose additional witnesses, and participate in motions
practice;
? the plaintiffs in Washington Federal, Reid, and Fisher can attend the depositions
but not ask questions; and
? the plaintiffs in all four cases can access and use electronic copies of documents
produced in Fairholme.
Disc. Order at 1-2.
In this case, the Government has not yet filed a responsive pleading. Instead, it
sought an extension of its due date for responding to the complaint until 60 days af-
1 The Government has not moved to dismiss the complaint in Reid. The Reid
plaintiffs are identical to those in Fisher, and after the Government moved to dismiss
the latter case, the plaintiffs agreed to stay both actions. Derivative Pls.’ Partial
Joinder in Mot. for Limited Disc. at 2-3, Cacciapalle (July 2, 2015), Dkt. No. 56.
2
ter the close of discovery in Fairholme. Dkt. No. 8. The Court granted that motion,
effectively placing this case in the same posture as the stayed cases. Dkt. No. 9.
In light of the common issues raised in this case and the cases addressed in the
Discovery Order, the Rafter Plaintiffs respectfully seek a limited right to participate
in the Fairholme discovery. Specifically, the Rafter Plaintiffs request: (1) access to
electronic copies of all discovery materials and documents produced in Fairholme,
including transcripts of all depositions, and (2) the right to use those documents, including
documents subject to the Fairholme protective order (to the extent permitted
by that order).2 The Rafter Plaintiffs do not seek the right to participate in or
attend depositions in Fairholme, or to participate in motions practice. Because this
request is narrower than the discovery the Court is now allowing in four other cases,
granting this motion will not prejudice any party or otherwise hinder any of the related
litigation. To the contrary, because the topics of discovery in Fairholme will
also be relevant here, granting this narrow request would simply serve the Court’s
and the parties’ interest in avoiding duplication of efforts.
In filing this motion, the Rafter Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek additional
discovery as may be necessary after the discovery in Fairholme concludes. There are
material differences between this case and the other cases challenging the Government’s
conduct in connection with the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. Whereas all other plaintiffs have exclusively brought takings claims, the Rafter
Plaintiffs have also brought a claim for breach of an implied contract. Dkt. No. 1
at ¶¶ 107-21. In addition, the Rafter Plaintiffs are all common shareholders of Fan-
2 The Court instructed the parties subject to its Discovery Order to confer regarding
revisions to the protective order. Disc. Order at 2. The Rafter Plaintiffs are
prepared to similarly confer with those parties regarding this issue.
3
nie Mae and/or Freddie Mac, unlike many of the preferred shareholders in the other
cases. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. Other differences could emerge following the Government’s
response to the Rafter Plaintiffs’ complaint. For these and other reasons, additional
discovery may prove necessary. In that event, the Rafter Plaintiffs will of course
make every effort—working with the Government—to avoid duplicating the discovery
already completed. Granting this motion will greatly aid that endeavor and conserve
the resources of this Court, the Government, and the Rafter Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Rafter Plaintiffs respectfully request access to and the right to
use electronic copies of all discovery materials and documents produced in
Fairholme, without prejudice to the Rafter Plaintiffs’ right to seek additional discovery
after the discovery in Fairholme concludes.
July 15, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lawrence D. Rosenberg
Lawrence D. Rosenberg
Counsel of Record
Of Counsel
Thomas F. Cullen
James E. Gauch
Paul V. Lettow
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
T: 202-879-3939
F: 202-626-1700
ldrosenberg@jonesday.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
4
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on July 15, 2015, the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification to
the attorneys of record in this matter, who are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF
system.
Date: July 15, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lawrence D. Rosenberg
Lawrence D. Rosenberg
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 10 Filed 07/15/15 Page 5 of 5
Yes, and maybe a run up to $7.17 :)
I agree, but it does look like we may be poised to make a run at $2.50+ again by the close.
My advice, don't bet with uknowwho...
Thanks D1, just saw that doc pop up.
Nice early volume, lets hope it continues.
Why tell the whole truth, when you can tell just a little to fit your agenda? lol
YEP!!!
GO BILL!!!
Hey, if the shell fits? Oh, that was bad. I'm truly ashamed of myself....
Thanks D1. Here's hoping Sweeney says...nope, 7/27 at the latest!
Thanks Dollars, saw that it was a R2M, but hadn't downloaded it yet. See anything of importance or is it just following suit with rest of the R2Ms?
TIA
No doubt. FYI, I just noticed another motion filing, but haven't had time to unpack it. Busy at work right now.
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that Defendant’s and Grant Thornton’s requests for an additional enlargement be denied,
and that the Court require the producing parties to respond to the motions at issue by no later
than July 27
Latest Fairholme filing from this morning, Doc.199, 7/15/15....(Dollars, thanks for your time & money spent staying on top of all of these!)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 13-465C
v. ) (Judge Sweeney)
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S AND GRANT
THORNTON’S MOTIONS FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO REMOVE THE
PROTECTED INFORMATION DESIGNATION FROM
MATERIALS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this response to the motions filed by Defendant and by
Grant Thornton LLP for an additional enlargement of time, until August 17, 2015, to file their
responses to Plaintiffs’ pending motions to remove the Protected Information designation from
certain materials produced in discovery.1 The responses to the motions at issue are currently due
on July 13, but Plaintiffs had previously agreed to Defendant’s and Grant Thornton’s (as well as
several other producing parties’) request for a two-week extension of that deadline. Defendant
and Grant Thornton now seek, however, to extend that already-extended deadline by another
three weeks, until August 17. The motions should be denied, and the Court should order that any
responses to the pending motions be filed no later than July 27.2
1 Grant Thornton LLP’s Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents
(Doc. 195); Defendant’s Motion for Enlargements of Time Within Which to File Coordinated
Briefs in Response to Plaintiffs’ Various Motions to Remove the “Protected Information”
Designation from Certain Documents, and The New York Times Company’s Motion to Intervene
(Doc. 198).
2 The other producing parties (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Deloitte, and Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers) have filed their own motion seeking to extend their deadline until July 27, but noting as
1
The motions at issue present two very straightforward questions: (1) whether the information
at issue meets the Protective Order’s definition of “Protected Information,” and (2)
whether the Protective Order forbids the “de-designation” of redacted versions of documents
produced in discovery. Although Plaintiffs chose, primarily for logistical reasons, to file a separate
motion for each entity that produced the information at issue, the motions collectively cover
a relatively small handful of documents and deposition transcripts, especially when compared to
the thousands of documents that have been produced in discovery. The motions have been pending
for weeks, and in one case (Doc. 162) for more than a month, and Plaintiffs have already
agreed to multiple deadline extensions, including a recent request to extend the deadline for responding
to the motions for another two weeks, until July 27. Moreover, since Plaintiffs consulted
with the producing parties regarding their de-designation requests before filing their motions,
the producing parties have known about – and have presumably been thinking about – the
issues raised by the motion for a long time.
Simply put, the producing parties have already been afforded more than ample time to
formulate and prepare their responses to the straightforward questions raised by the motions.
Notably, although it tries to do so, Defendant can no longer credibly point to its other discovery
obligations as an excuse for putting off responding to the motions. Defendant has finished its
document productions, and it produced “final” privilege logs to Plaintiffs on July 10. And the
well that if the Court grants Defendant’s and Grant Thornton’s extension motions, judicial economy
would support a similar additional extension of their deadline. Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal National Mortgage Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and
Deloitte & Touche LLP’s Unopposed Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’
Motions to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Documents at 2
n.1 (Doc. 196). For the same reason Defendant’s and Grant Thornton’s motions should be denied,
so should any similar request by the remaining producing parties.
2
last of the currently-scheduled depositions will be completed on July 15.3 Although Defendant
notes that it “anticipate[s]” that additional depositions will take place, Doc. 198 at 2, none have
yet been noticed, and there is no realistic prospect that any depositions that may eventually be
noticed will take place between now and July 27. The mere possibility that additional depositions
may be scheduled for August or early September, therefore, provides no support for yet another
extension of the deadline. While the parties will certainly need to devote some time to discussions,
and perhaps motions practice, regarding Defendant’s privilege assertions now that they
have been finalized, Plaintiffs are still in the process of reviewing the recently-produced final
logs, and it is unlikely that Defendant will need to devote significant time to this issue between
now and July 27. Grant Thornton, for its part, does not even attempt to identify any particular
discovery item that it is currently working on, and Plaintiffs know of only one such item (the
preparation of a corrected privilege log that is much smaller than the FHFA and Treasury privilege
logs prepared by Defendant). There is therefore no reason Defendant and Grant Thornton
cannot prepare their responses to the de-designation motions by July 27.
Finally, Plaintiffs and the public are prejudiced by the continuing delays in the resolution
of these motions. Absent a showing of good cause, the presumption is that information produced
in discovery is available to the parties and to the public. Every day that the producing parties are
allowed to maintain a Protected Information designation for materials that do not qualify for such
a designation, therefore, is a day in which Plaintiffs are denied their right to review information
that is relevant to their claims and to thereby assist in the prosecution of their claim for the taking
3 Although Defendant cites its work on these tasks, all of which have been or soon will be
completed, as supporting its motion, Doc. 198 at 2, it knew about these tasks when it asked for
and received Plaintiffs’ consent to extend the deadline until July 27. Defendant has not adequately
explained how this fully anticipated and substantially completed work now justifies another
three week extension on top of the multiple extensions it has already received.
3
of their property without just compensation.4 Consistent with the importance placed on the protection
of that right, the Protective Order itself includes fairly strict timeframes that are designed
to require the parties to work together as expeditiously as possible to seek to resolve de-designation
disputes.5 The spirit of the Protective Order would therefore be frustrated if Defendant were
allowed, for no good reason, to further delay the resolution of this dispute.6
Plaintiffs fully agree that it makes sense for the briefing on Plaintiffs’ de-designation motions
to proceed “in a coordinated and efficient manner.” Doc. 198 at 2. But such coordination
can be easily accomplished without also further delaying the briefing and resolution of these
straightforward, though important, motions. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully
submit that Defendant’s and Grant Thornton’s requests for an additional enlargement be denied,
and that the Court require the producing parties to respond to the motions at issue by no later
than July 27.
4 For this reason, Defendant’s claim that its motion seeks to “delay only the determination
of whether these discovery materials should also be made public,” Doc. 198 at 3 (emphasis
in original), is incorrect.
5 See, e.g., Protective Order ¶ 17 (Doc. 73) (requiring parties to try to resolve dispute
within five business days after notice is given, and allowing challenging party to file motion after
providing three business days’ notice).
6 In addition, in the event that the de-designation motions are still pending at that time,
Plaintiffs intend to discuss the issues relating to those motions at the status conference currently
scheduled for August 13, 2015. Given the difficulties of aligning the parties’ schedules, additional
extensions of the briefing schedule for the de-designation motions threaten to result in further
prejudicial delays in the resolution of this dispute.
4
Date: July 14, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
Of counsel:
Vincent J. Colatriano
David H. Thompson
Peter A. Patterson
Brian W. Barnes
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel
of record on this 14th day of July, 2015, via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 199 Filed 07/14/15 Page 6 of 6
Date Filed 07/09/2015 #194 Docket Text
**SEALED** ORDER granting limited relief. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties. (Entered: 07/09/2015) Filed about 5pm.
This is all I could see as the Order is Sealed. Limited relief is better than none I guess. Any guesses?
JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY SCHEDULE and add 67 days from June 29 to Sept 4 was just Granted and Ordered by Sweeney
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 193 Filed 07/09/15 4:30pm