After reviewing this motion to suspend the Plaintiffs' discovery, feelings of incredulity arose. Noticeably embedded in the Defendants' Counsel repetitive narrative, declarative statements of alleged fact and legal arguments are negative assessments of Judge Sweeney's order for discovery. It appears that the arguments are not focused, reasoned and convincing enough to have had the order suspended. In lieu of well reasoned, convincing arguments, there are negative evaluations liberally sprinkled throughout the motion. Below is a list of discrediting evaluations, implications and whines found in order of appearance in the motion:
* unnecessary * inappropriate, * would not aid the Court in deciding the motion to dismiss, is contrary to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, * does not eliminate actions that are fatally flawed in Plaintiff's their legal premises, * causes litigants the burdens of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity, * Government is entitled to have the Court decide these independent arguments at the outset of the case, * the Government will suffer significant prejudice if required to provide extensive discovery before the Court considers the remaining dispositive arguments, * the Government will suffer especially severe harm because plaintiffs have signaled that they intend to seek extensive discovery on a broad spectrum of factual issues that deeply implicate the merits of the case, * Because of the sweeping nature of plaintiffs’ allegations, that likely would mean requests to depose numerous officials and the potential for requests to produce hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pages of documents. * The parties’ and the Court’s interests are best served by postponing burdensome discovery * There Is undisputedly no need For discovery * suspension of discovery will spare the parties and the Court the unnecessary discovery burdens and disputes that will inevitably result from wide-ranging fact discovery. * Defendants imply that the court order does not provide for a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” * Defendants imply that the court order is not an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources. * the court order is a burdensome and expensive discovery * the pending jurisdictional challenges may make this discovery unnecessary * The potential expense to the Government of complying with even a fraction of plaintiffs’ objectives will be enormous, invasive, and completely avoidable * Defendants imply that court order is not an efficient administration of justice * Defendants imply that court ordered discovery will be useless in assisting the Court in resolving the Defendants' motion to dismiss * The requested discovery regarding ripeness Is both unnecessary and statutorily prohibited * the court ordered discovery in response to a ripeness challenge is illogical * discovery at this stage is inappropriate * the court order for discovery cannot possibly yield facts that would bear on the Government’s ripeness argument. * Defendants say that court ordered discovery would violate Congress’s directive under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (the court order is illegal) * the court ordered discovery is invasive and improper * the court ordered discovery will be unfocused and ineffective. * The Court’s conclusion conflicts with case law, and the discovery permitted cannot support jurisdiction. * The Court incorrectly relied on legal precedent * The Court erred In granting discovery to aid In defense of the Government’s RCFC 12(b)(6) Motion * The Court order allows the plaintiffs a premature, one-sided opportunity to embark on an invasive and burdensome hunt for evidence and does not comport with the Court’s Rules or their purpose * The Court ordered discovery is inappropriate, contrary to case law and fundamentally unfair
Again, rather than focusing on developing the strength and credibility of their legal arguments to support constructive conclusions to suspend the discovery, the Defendants appear to make an unrelenting effort to chasten and subdue Judge Sweeney with unfavorable evaluations of the court order. This effort amounts to throwing a loose bundle of brickbats and hoping that some will hit their judicial target. Obviously, they completely missed the target.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
