Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[chessmaster315]

Wow. Thank you, Obit. It would appear the defendandants are arguing what Sweeney has ALREADY decided. That is, that HERA does not prohibit discovery in this instance. Does Judge Sweeney, need to say, "No, I wont do that." AND No, I already said I wont do that, and "No, I told you twice I wont allow that. Over and over again. This is an insult to the judge, since Judge Sweeney has already ruled to permit broad discovery, and already knows about HERA..this is not new information to the judge.
For example:

A. Permitting The Discovery Plaintiffs Seek Would Be Contrary To HERA
Good cause exists for a protective order barring plaintiffs from propounding these
requests. See Iris Corp. Behad v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 489, 492 (2008) (“Good cause
requires a showing that the discovery request is considered likely to oppress an adversary or
might otherwise impose an undue burden.”). The requests—which are designed to elicit
information regarding when and how the conservatorship will terminate and the future
profitability of the Enterprises—run headlong into the governing provisions of HERA.

This is in conflict with Obama's policy of transparency and accountability. The government is not arguing it would conflate with national security...this is what I expected them to argue. I thought the governent would argue that revealing these documents would compromise national security.
Of course, our security would trump any claim the for the plaintiffs. However, by NOT including national security, the goverment instead uses "undue burden", when this is a conclusory statement without supporting evidence fo how it would be an undue burden.