Replies to post #227299 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

I am going out for a 7:00 pm meeting. Will be back later to give a comment or two.

See you later.

[obiterdictum]

Judge Sweeney's June 19, 2014 court order is the result that followed the oral argument held on June 19, 2014. The oral arguments by the parties are rehashes of the arguments found in the previously filed briefs. The reason why this is happening at all is due to the disagreements between the Plaintiffs and Defendants over the meaning of Judge Sweeney's original discovery order. So the case is in disorder and it cannot be allowed to continue in this fashion.

So, as mentioned in the previous message, Judge Sweeney's newest order is about case management and getting the bogged down parties to go forward. And so, at this point, nothing has been decided beyond upgrading and enforcing court housekeeping.

Judge Sweeney's latest order allows the parties one last chance to settle their discovery differences before judge Sweeney settles all issues in a written order to come later.

Though Judge Sweeney made specific comments during oral argument that were apparently in support of the Plaintiffs' jurisdictional argument and before discovery is complete, she has not rendered a decision on those arguments that were made in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. She also has not decided on the reduction of the scope of the discovery for certain dates, nor granted the desired cut off date for discovery (August 17, 2012), or agreed to the refusals to negotiate or produce documents that the Defendants seek.

So, given these differences rehashed yet again in the oral argument, what the court has done is to move the case towards settling an initial wave of jurisdictional discovery for the period April 1, 2008 or July 1, 2008 to August 12, 2012. A subsequent wave or waves of jurisdictional discovery are to follow.

After considering the parties date range proposals, reasonings and joint protective order proposal. Judge Sweeney will write a stipulated protective order. Judge Sweeney's order will detail the scope and date ranges of the first wave of jurisdictional discovery and settle the Defendants' motion for protective order.

Some parts of that order will have an attorneys-eyes-only provision for certain pre-decisional, deliberative documents. Judged Sweeney promised sanctions for any leakage of protective order documents. "If any portion of a document is leaked, that document would not be able to be used in this litigation, period." Once the leaker is identified, their bar license for the Court of Federal Claims would be revoked and internal referrals and disbarment proceeding started elsewhere.

Judge Sweeney's next order is the one where it will be seen how the Judge handles her view that the Plaintiffs are "looking for too much" and the Defendants' "are offering too little."

At that time, it will be made certain and clear, and without caveats as found in the oral argument, where Judge Sweeney stands in relation to the Plaintiffs, Defendants and jurisdictional discovery.

Fundamentally, Judge Sweeney has remained true to the original determination in the first discovery order when she says:

19 THE COURT: And I will tell you now, I’m going to
20 give -- I think I have a clear grasp of the nature of the
21 dispute that we have right now, and it’s the Plaintiffs’
22 ability to meet the jurisdictional challenge brought by the
23 Defendant. And there’s going to be more -- a more narrow
24 date range. I don’t think if a document was created on July
25 1st of 2008, you know, what you all have agreed to here or
1 proposed, and the fact that that same document was later
2 discussed on May 20th, 2014, the May 20th, 2014 document is
3 not going to be produced.
4 I mean, there’s got to be -- for purposes of the
5 nature of this inquiry and this discovery request, it’s going
6 to be more narrowly focused. We’re taking a surgical
7 approach. But I want the Plaintiffs to have -- I mean, their
8 day in court may be that they’d prevail all the way to the
9 Supreme Court. I’m not coming down one way or the other, but
10 it’s important for the Plaintiffs to have access to
11 information so that they have the ability, if possible, to
12 establish this Court’s jurisdiction. And that’s all I’m
13 dealing with at the moment.
14 Merits from the Government -- Plaintiffs’
15 perspective will come later; from the Government’s
16 perspective, we won’t need to go there. So, we’ll just have
17 to see who prevails. But the Plaintiffs will have the
18 ability to make the best case they can to establish the
19 Court’s jurisdiction. And with that, I’ll say good
20 afternoon. Thank you.
21 ALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 (Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the hearing was
23 adjourned.)

Source:
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/corrected-appendix.pdf - see A33.

Oral Argument - June 19, 2014
http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/619-Hearing.pdf

Form 8 - PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PROCUREMENT PROTEST CASES
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/court_info/20130813_rules/Form%208.pdf

Order - June 19, 2014
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/order-61914-2.pdf

Recap of Order - June 19, 2014
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103545668