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.
Yes great news! Great news that Ackman CHOSE to bring up Fannie, Freddie at Delivering Alpha.
Hopefully we hear from Sweeney soon on that part.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS
INTRODUCTION
The Government does not deny that, irrespective of whether this Court were to grant the Government’s supplemental motion to dismiss, this Court would retain subject matter jurisdic- tion over this case and discovery would move forward. That was our principal argument for stay- ing briefing on the Government’s supplemental motion, and it is a conclusive basis for granting our requested relief. There is no reason for this Court to resolve a motion that will have no effect on its jurisdiction over this case or on the progression of discovery, and there is no reason to rule on a supplemental motion that could be rendered completely irrelevant when this Court ad- dresses all jurisdictional issues after the close of discovery. This Court should not waste any more time than it has already been forced to expend on the Government’s supplemental motion.
ARGUMENT
It is black letter law that “the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006); see also Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986). In our motion, we pointed out that, because the Government concedes that its supplemental motion
does not affect Berkley Insurance Company’s standing, it is clear that there is a live “contro- versy” under Article III, and this Court’s jurisdiction over this case would not be affected even if the Government’s motion were granted. The Government’s response does not argue otherwise. It is undisputed, then, that this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case will not be affected by resolution of the Government’s supplemental motion.
Instead, the Government stresses that Article III requires standing “for each claim.” See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). But no one disputes that Plaintiffs must have standing for their respective claims; the question is whether that standing inquiry must occur right now or can instead be adjudicated as part of the other jurisdictional disputes that this Court will address after discovery. For this reason, the Government’s attempt to distinguish Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (“FAIR”) and its citations to im- puted-standing cases miss the point. See Gov’t Resp. to Pls.’ Motion to Stay Briefing on Def.’s Supp. Mot. to Dismiss at 3–4 (July 6, 2015), Doc. 182 (“Gov’t Resp.”). Plaintiffs are not arguing that FAIR permits the standing of Berkley Insurance Company to be imputed to the other Plain- tiffs. Rather, the point is that, under FAIR, this Court will have jurisdiction over this case even if individual Plaintiffs do not have standing (of course, they do have standing, see infra pages [[X– X]]), which the Government does not deny. The only question at issue, then, is when the Court will make its standing determination as to individual Plaintiffs. And because it is undisputed that this Court will have jurisdiction to proceed with discovery and rule on the other jurisdictional questions regardless of the Government’s supplemental motion, there is nothing to be gained by adjudicating the Government’s supplemental motion now.
That is particularly true because, as the Government notes in footnote 2 of its response, the Government’s principal motion to dismiss argues that all Plaintiffs lack standing. Gov’t
Resp. 4 n.2. If, when this Court addresses jurisdictional issues after discovery, it were to agree with the Government on this point (which, we respectfully submit, would be error), the Govern- ment’s supplemental motion would be entirely superfluous. The Government offers no substan- tive response to these efficiency arguments; it simply asserts that they should not matter because standing can be raised at any time. See Gov’t Resp. 8–9. But just because standing can be raised now does not mean it should be adjudicated now. The decision to stay briefing is about timing,1 and Plaintiffs’ efficiency arguments demonstrate the senselessness of adjudicating this dispute now. On a motion to stay, that should be decisive. Cf. San Francisco Tech., Inc. v. The Glad Prods. Co., 2010 WL 2943537, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2010) (staying proceedings after de- fendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing “because a stay will promote judicial economy, prevent unnecessary expenditure of resources and cause no prejudice to Plaintiff”).
Moreover, the Government misunderstands our argument that staying briefing will permit a more orderly presentation of the issues and that it would be premature to resolve the Govern- ment’s supplemental motion while discovery on related issues is ongoing. We pointed out that it will be far more efficient to cover all dispositive legal questions with a single briefing schedule once all relevant facts have been revealed through discovery. See Pls.’ Mot. to Stay Briefing on Def.’s Supp. MTD at 4 (June 17, 2015), Doc. 164 (“Pls.’ Mot. to Stay”). At that point, Plaintiffs intend to move for leave to amend their complaint to account for such facts, and the Government would presumably have an opportunity to respond. The Government never engages with this point; rather, it claims that it can simultaneously argue that the taking occurred on August 17,
1 The Government says that it failed to raise this standing issue until now because it only learned about the basis for its motion during discovery. See Gov’t Resp. 8. Obviously, nothing prevented the Government from filing a supplemental motion to dismiss—precisely what it has done here—when it first learned of the underlying information over a year ago. See Pls.’ Mot. to Stay 2.
2012, and deny that the timing of the taking is even knowable. See Gov’t Resp. 4–5. But Plain- tiffs were not charging the Government with inconsistency; we were pointing out that the timing of the taking has been a subject of dispute that prompted this Court’s discovery order. It would be premature to adjudicate a motion that depends on issues being developed in discovery.
In light of these considerations, it makes sense that this Court has rejected the Govern- ment’s piecemeal approach to litigation in the past, a track record that the Government tries to diminish by calling it “iron[ic]” that Plaintiffs seek a stay here based on this Court’s denial of a stay of discovery. Id. at 8–9. But a stay here would be consistent with this Court’s denial of a dis- covery stay: both actions reject the Government’s efforts to slow or interfere with the discovery ordered by this Court.2
Finally, the Government insists that this Court could rule in its favor quickly because the standing question is an “easy one.” Gov’t Resp. 6. Yet, for all the space the Government spends describing the facts of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), and Bailey v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 239 (2007), its only argument distinguishing those cases is that they “both in- volved challenges to land-use regulations, which are subject to unique considerations regarding when a Fifth Amendment takings claim can accrue.” Gov’t Resp. 6. Curiously, the Government never gets around to explaining what those “unique considerations” are or how they distinguish this case. Nor does the Government point out that, just last month, the Supreme Court emphati- cally rejected the notion that real property and personal property are subject to different levels of protection under the Takings Clause, at least in the context of appropriation of property. Horne v.
2 The Government never responds to Plaintiffs’ other example of this Court rejecting a piecemeal approach: this Court’s decision to order jurisdictional discovery despite the Govern- ment’s insistence that some issues could be resolved without discovery. See Pls.’ Mot. to Stay 3– 4.
Department of Agric., 2015 WL 2473384, at *5 (U.S. June 22, 2015) (“[The Takings Clause] protects ‘private property’ without any distinction between different types.”).
Even a casual perusal of Palazzolo or Bailey dispels the notion that this standing issue is straightforward. In Palazzolo, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that passage of title to prop- erty necessarily extinguishes the successor’s regulatory takings claim: “It suffices to say that a regulation that otherwise would be unconstitutional absent compensation is not transformed into a background principle of the State’s law by mere virtue of the passage of title.” 533 U.S. at 629–30. To hold otherwise, in the Court’s view, would have “work[ed] a critical alteration to the nature of property” in which the State “secure[s] a windfall for itself” when property is trans- ferred. Id. at 627. Bailey relied upon Palazzolo in holding that a property owner had standing to challenge a pre-acquisition regulatory taking. 78 Fed. Cl. at 271. And, contra the Government’s argument, the whole point of Bailey was that, even as to land, a regulatory taking claim may, in at least some circumstances, be maintained by an individual who acquired the land after the tak- ing commenced. Id. at 268–75.3 The Bailey Court reaffirmed that analysis even after the Federal Circuit’s decision in CRV Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (2010), see Bailey v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 310, 317–18 (2014), upon which the Government relies, see Gov’t
3 The Government states that Bailey held that the plaintiff could not bring a takings claim for lots he did not own at the time of the taking. See Gov’t Resp. 7. This claim is erroneous. As the Government’s parenthetical quoting Bailey indicates, the Court held that the plaintiff could not bring a takings claim for property he owned neither at the time of the taking nor at the time he brought the case. See id. (“Plaintiff neither held a property interest in lots 7, 8, and 11 at the various times he alleged that a taking had transpired nor since.” (quoting Bailey, 78 Fed. Cl. at 275 (emphasis added))). But the Court held that the plaintiffs could bring a takings claim for property he acquired after the taking. See Bailey, 78 Fed. Cl. at 274.
Resp. 6–7. The Government’s portrayal of the standing inquiry as “easy” is, therefore, quite mis- taken, and this Court should defer adjudicating this complicated question until it examines all ju- risdictional issues after discovery.4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order staying all briefing on the Government’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 161, until the Court lifts its stay on the Government’s principal Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 20.
Date: July 16, 2015
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)
Respectfully submitted,
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
Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. Announces Second Quarter 2015 Investor Call Amsterdam, 7 July 2015 //- Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. (ticker: PSH:NA) will host its quarterly investor conference call on 10 August 2015 at 11:00 EDT (15:00 GMT). During the call, Bill Ackman and the other members of the Pershing Square investment team will address questions e-mailed by investors to ir@persq.com. A live audio webcast of the conference call will be available to the public on PSH's website at www.pershingsquareholdings.com. The conference call will also be available by phone. Dial-in information and a link to the live audio webcast will be available at www.pershingsquareholdings.com on Friday, August 7, 2015. Following the call, an audio replay will be available for two weeks until 24 August 2015 at midnight EDT (25 August 2015 at 4:00 GMT). To access the audio webcast, please visit www.pershingsquareholdings.com. About Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. (PSH:NA) is an investment holding company structured as a closed end fund that makes concentrated investments principally in North American companies.
Volume 1 million in first ten minutes!
My mistake, sorry about that!
And Icahn is from the Bronx :)
Hilarious! Have to find and post video of Icahn, Fink debate.
Icahn and Fink On cnbc now.
I posted the table of contents for that earlier. It's 39 pages, more reading! :)
that would be Isaac
That would make my weekend!
This Friday is 7/17. It would be nice to get some great news from the courtroom at 717 Madison Place :)
United States Court of Federal Claims
Howard T. Markey National Courts Building
717 Madison Place, NW
Washington, DC 20439
PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLIC, REDACTED MOTION TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN UNREDACTED INFORMATION IN DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY FREDDIE MAC
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)
June 26, 2015
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED............................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................2
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
I. FREDDIE MAC HAS IMPROPERLY DESIGNATED THE UNREDACTED INFORMATION AS PROTECTED INFORMATION. .....................................................3
A. The unredacted information does not come within the terms of the
Protective Order’s definition of “Protected Information.” ......................................3
B. Keeping the unredacted information secret prejudices Plaintiffs’ ability to
make their case.........................................................................................................6
C. Keeping the unredacted information hidden from the public contravenes
First Amendment principles.....................................................................................7
D. The Protective Order permits the de-designation of partially redacted
information under Paragraphs 17 and 19. ................................................................9
E. The Government’s assertion in the D.D.C. Fairholme litigation that the Net
Worth Sweep was a policy-driven action is undermined by the unredacted information. The D.C. Circuit and other courts should have access to the
relevant facts in making their decisions.................................................................10
II. ALTERNATIVELY, THIS COURT SHOULD AUTHORIZE PLAINTIFFS TO
FILE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FAIRHOLME D.C. CIRCUIT LITIGATION
AND IN ANY OTHER ACTION CHALLENGING THE NET WORTH SWEEP
IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS PARTICIPATE EITHER AS PARTIES OR AMICI. ............11
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12
APPENDIX
Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4:
FHLMC_00002429...........................................................................................A001 Emails between Vince Colatriano and Counsel ...............................................A003 Transcript of July 16, 2014 Status Conference.................................................A011
FHFA Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, No. 1:13-cv-01053-RCL
(D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2014), ECF No. 28.................................................................A017
(39 pages!)
Just what Navy posted below. It's (pleasantly) surprising that they have continued to mention Fannie, Freddie all day. On the webpage, they started the day with Breaking News (ha!) Headline, and they left the Ackman clip on the top of the page most of the morning.
cnbc talking fannie, freddie again now
Are you calling me a turtle? :)
I've read them, just can't post fast enough. :) Looking forward to Sweeney's remarks :)
We left off earlier today at 200
201
07/14/2015 REPLY to Response to Motion re 198 MOTION for Extension of Time until 08/17/2015 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Various Motions to Remove Protected Information Designation from Certain Documents, and The New York Times Company's Motion to Intervene , filed by USA. (Bezak, Reta)
202
07/14/2015 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae (Public, Redacted Version) re 170 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/31/2015.(Cooper, Charles)
203
07/14/2015 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte (Public, Redacted Version) re 169 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles)
204
07/14/2015 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Public, Redacted Version) re 172 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/31/2015.(Cooper, Charles)
205
07/14/2015 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents (Public, Redacted Version) re 166 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/31/2015.(Cooper, Charles)
206
07/14/2015 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents (Public, Redacted Version) re 165 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Volume 1, # 2 Appendix Volume 2, # 3 Appendix Volume 3)(Cooper, Charles)
Good point!
07/14/2015 RESPONSE to 198 MOTION for Extension of Time until 08/17/2015 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Various Motions to Remove Protected Information Designation from Certain Documents, and The New York Times Company's Motion to Intervene , filed by The New York Times Company.Reply due by 7/24/2015. (McCraw, David)
They are only requesting two transcripts, DeMarco and Ugoletti, and they aren't pleased with gov's disregard. They say public should be able to follow this important case.
NYT response :)
Thanks TII! Under pressure! Not a fun summer for the defendants' legal team!
@TVWWB: #TVWWB w/ @kathyireland discusses #AntiAging #Skincare Solutions! Tune in 5:30p Sunday 7/19 to FBN as sponsored programming #beautytips
Nice!!JJ8
Someone else said, hopefully it's not health related.
Boies firm has been on the case for the junior preferred shareholders.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/07/plaintiffs-firms-line-up-for-fanniefreddie-lawsuits.html
They've been there on the appeals case all along and the related Fairholme case.
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
Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests enlargements of time of varying lengths such as will permit the Government to file, on August 17, 2015: (1) a consolidated brief in response to the various motions1 to remove the “Protected Information” designation from discovery materials filed by plaintiffs, Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. (Fairholme); and (2) a coordinated response to the motion to intervene (for the purpose of seeking removal of “Protected Information” designations) filed by The New York Times Company (NYT) on June 30, 2015 (ECF No. 177). The Government’s responses to Fairholme’s motions are currently due
1 Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designations from the Depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti, June 12, 2015, ECF No. 162; Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents, June 18, 2015, ECF No. 165; Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents, June 12, 2015, ECF No. 166.
on July 13, 2015.2 The Government’s response to NYT’s motion is currently due on July 17, 2015. Fairholme and NYT both oppose the enlargements of time requested in this motion.
Good cause exists to grant the requested enlargements of time.3 As an initial matter, setting the deadlines for the responses for the same date will allow us to respond to them in a coordinated and efficient manner (and through a single consolidated brief for the several motions filed by Fairholme). During the period since these motions were filed, the efforts of Government attorneys have largely been directed to the burdens of complying with the Court’s discovery orders, including producing documents and privilege logs, and preparing for and participating in depositions noticed by Fairholme – including four depositions in four different cities between July 8, 2015 and July 15, 2015. Moreover, we anticipate that there will be additional depositions before the end of the discovery period – recently extended to September 4, 2015 – as well as significant motions practice relating to the Government’s recently-produced final privilege logs. Given that these activities have limited our ability to devote time to preparing the Government’s responses to the motions, the additional time requested is needed so that the Government will have adequate time to prepare meaningful responses to these motions.4 The additional time requested will also provide Government counsel and the appropriate agency personnel with the
2 The Court had previously granted a 14-day enlargement of time (from June 29, 2015 to July 13, 2015) for the Government’s response to Fairholme’s motion regarding the depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti, and a 7-day enlargement of time (from July 6, 2015 to July 13, 2015) for the Government’s response to Fairholme’s motion regarding Grant Thornton documents.
3 The Government apologizes for seeking this enlargement of time on the due date for most of these matters. We had intended to seek guidance from the Court as to the timing and form of the responses to the above-referenced motions at a status conference originally scheduled for July 7, 2015. However, that status conference has been rescheduled to August 13, 2015, well after the Government’s responses are due.
4 In this regard, we also note that Gregg M. Schwind, one of the Government’s primary attorneys in this case, left the Department of Justice on July 10, 1015.
2
necessary time to coordinate the contents of our responses and to obtain internal review of our responses prior to filing them with the Court.
Finally, the additional time requested will not prejudice Fairholme. Fairholme has access to all of the documents referenced in their motions and can fully utilize those documents in this litigation. Moreover, the Court has already provided Fairholme limited relief when it permitted Fairholme file the documents at issue, albeit under seal, in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.). Order, July 9, 2015, ECF No. 194. In light of the fact that Fairholme is free to use the protected documents in this litigation, and in the related litigation pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the modest enlargement of time sought – which would delay only the determination of whether these discovery materials should also be made public – is not unreasonable.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court permit the Government to file its coordinated responses to Fairholme’s de-designation motions and The New York Times Company’s related motion to intervene on August 17, 2015.
OF COUNSEL:
PETER A. BIEGER Assistant General Counsel
KATHERINE M. BRANDES Attorney Advisor
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220
July 13, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
s/Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director
s/Kenneth M. Dintzer KENNETH M. DINTZER Deputy Director
Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-0385
Facsimile: (202) 307-0973
Email: Kenneth.Dintzer@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
I like how you call them all by their first name, sounds more like a movie screenplay. Jack, Mel, Ed, Mario, James, John, Timothy, Charles, Ted, David, Bruce, Bill, Margaret, Stacey. We need some more females for the movie. :)
o Stacey Grigsby of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
o Eric L. Zagar of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
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
Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, nonparties Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) (Freddie Mac’s auditor), and Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) (Fannie Mae’s auditor) (collectively, “Respondents”) respectfully request a 14-day enlargement of time, to and including July 27, 2015, within which to file their responses to Plaintiffs’ four separate June 26, 2015 motions to remove the “Protected Information” designation from certain Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, PwC, and Deloitte documents (collectively, the “De-Designation Motions”). Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, PwC, and Deloitte’s responses are currently due on July 13, 2015. This is the first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose, and Plaintiffs consent to the relief sought by this
PAGE 1 OF 3
motion on the condition that Respondents not seek an additional extension (absent unforeseen circumstances), a condition Respondents accepted.1
There is good cause for an enlargement of time. Given Freddie Mac’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Freddie Mac Chief Financial Officer, Ross Kari, which took place on July 10, 2015, in Eugene, Oregon, and Fannie Mae’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Fannie Mae Chief Financial Officer, Susan MacFarland, which is scheduled for July 15, 2015, in Houston, Texas, an enlargement of time is needed to meaningfully and appropriately respond to the De-Designation Motions. As noted above, Plaintiffs have consented to these extensions, and the Court already permitted Plaintiffs to file the documents that are the subject of the De-Designation Motions under seal in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.).
For these reasons, we request that the Court extend the deadline for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, PwC, and Deloitte to respond to the De-Designation Motions by 14 days, to July 27, 2015. See fn. 1.
Respectfully submitted, this the 13th day of July 2015.
/s/ Michael J. Ciatti
Graciela M. Rodriguez
Michael J. Ciatti
KING & SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Ste. 200 Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 737 0500 Fax: (202) 626 3737
Counsel for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
1 At the time Respondents accepted Plaintiffs’ condition, they did not know that the Government and Grant Thornton were going to seek an extension until August 17, 2015, to respond to the de-designation motions pending as to them. To the extent the Court grants the Government and Grant Thornton until August 17, 2015, judicial economy would support extending Respondents’ deadline until August 17, 2015.
/s/ H. Christopher Bartolomucci
H. Christopher Bartolomucci BANCROFT PLLC
500 New Jersey Avenue NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 234-0090
Fax: (202) 234-2806
Counsel for Federal National Mortgage Association
/s/ Matthew D. Schnall
Matthew D. Schnall
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109 USA
Tel: (617) 526 6892
Fax: (617) 526 5000
Counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers
/s/ Adam M. Studner
Adam M. Studner
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 223 7300
Fax: (202) 223 7420
Counsel for Deloitte & Touche LLP
NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATIONS OF
STACEY K. GRIGSBY, ERIC L. ZAGAR, AND JOSHUA B. KAPLAN FOR ACCESS TO PROTECTED INFORMATION
Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Protective Order (Doc. 73) issued by the Court on July 16, 2014, Plaintiffs respectfully file the attached applications of Stacey K. Grigsby, Eric L. Zagar, and Joshua B. Kaplan for access to Protected Information. In accordance with the procedures es- tablished under Paragraph 7 of the Protective Order, counsel for the parties have consulted with each other regarding these applications, and neither opposes the applicants’ access to Protected Information
Date: July 13, 2015
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)
Respectfully submitted,
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
07/13/2015 NOTICE, filed by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Applications of Stacey K. Grisgsby, Eric L. Zagar, and Joshua B. Kaplan for Access to Protected Information (Attachments: # 1 Stacey K. Grigsby Application, # 2 Eric L. Zagar Application, # 3 Joshua B. Kaplan Application)(Cooper, Charles)
07/13/2015 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 172 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers , 170 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae , 171 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Freddie Mac , 169 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte , filed by FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION.Response due by 7/30/2015.(Ciatti, Michael)
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
Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, nonparty Grant Thornton LLP (“Grant Thornton”) respectfully requests an enlargement of time, to and including August 17, 2015, within which to file its response to Plaintiffs’ June 18, 2015 motion to remove the “Protected Information” designation from certain Grant Thornton documents (the “De-Designation Motion”). Grant Thornton’s response is currently due on July 13, 2015. Plaintiffs oppose an enlargement of time beyond July 27, 2015.
There is good cause for an enlargement of time, given that the discovery period in this case has been extended to September 4, 2015, and the parties and Grant Thornton are working diligently to complete multiple responsibilities related to discovery. Moreover, the additional time would make the briefing of this motion the same as at least one other motion to remove the protected designation from documents produced in discovery in this case.
For these reasons, we request that the Court extend the deadline for Grant Thornton to respond to the De-Designation Motion by 35 days, to August 17, 2015.
Dated: New York, New York July 13, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Richard B. Harper
Richard B. Harper
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-4498 Tel.: (212) 408-2675
Fax: (212) 259-2475 richard.harper@bakerbotts.com
Attorneys for Grant Thornton LLP
Of Counsel:
Jessica F. Rosenbaum
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-4498
Tel.: (212) 408-2586
Fax: (212) 259-2586 jessica.rosenbaum@bakerbotts.com
07/13/2015 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 17, 2015 to Respond to Plaintiffs June 18, 2015 Motion to Remove the Protected Information Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents , filed by GRANT THORNTON LLP.Response due by 7/30/2015.(Harper, Richard)
no word yet
The Kudlow part is still interesting. Looks like he just tweeted Scott Walker and New York Times.
@larry_kudlow: @SoCal4Lif @ScottWalker @nytimes Sat radio show @LarryKudlowShow on fanniegate.