Grenville Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Still no documents produced from the Motion to Compel. This is annoying. What's the point of the order, if the government is allowed to drag its feet and not comply… I hope Judge Sweeney comes down hard and orders the defendant to pay attorney fees or this will continue to drag on...13-465-0342.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 It may drag on even if she orders the government to pay attorneys' fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 It may drag on even if she orders the government to pay attorneys' fees. Is there anything preventing her from just turning over the documents to the plaintiffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 It may drag on even if she orders the government to pay attorneys' fees. Is there anything preventing her from just turning over the documents to the plaintiffs? Ps response that you linked (thx) indicates that govt may seek to appeal, in the form of seeking a writ of mandamus from the fed cir appeals ct...which would be rather extraordinary but which would involve substantial passage of time in order for it to be denied. i expect that sweeney will not want to release docs before that, tho i dont know that she cant. but i do believe that sweeney is getting pissier by the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Question for the attorneys: given that there is no deadline for the government to produce the 56 documents (per the Motion to Compel), why would they ever produce them outside an order with a firm date to produce said documents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. What's the point of issuing a ruling with no deadline, especially given how she is aware (and upset) at their delay tactics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. What's the point of issuing a ruling with no deadline, especially given how she is aware (and upset) at their delay tactics? Your guess is as good as mine. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. she is being very careful, bending over backwards to seem reasonable....i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadspace Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. she is being very careful, bending over backwards to seem reasonable....i guess 3 plus years of very careful bending over. My arteries are hardening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 [removed] Clearly a general expression of frustration with the speed at which the wheels of justice turn is offensive to some. They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. she is being very careful, bending over backwards to seem reasonable....i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 Then sell out of the position(s) if you hold one. If you don't like how slow the wheels of justice move, and if you see no other possibilities outside the wheels of justice, then this clearly isn't your cup of tea. The future outcomes of this situation regarding timing and/or recovery are uncertain. Neither positive/negative sentiment is appropriate at the present time. But if you clearly don't like the possibilities here and are hung up on the semantics of the word "settlement," then please move on and spare us your commentary. Hmm ... all quite disappointing. If we play this through: government objective is likely to drag this out for as long as possible and it knows that this judge is pissed off, so they will not seek to keep her favourably pre-disposed. Money and attorney fees don't matter. More time taken is better. So - it seems very likely that they will seek to appeal this and, as per what you guys are saying, it will take time - even though it will likely be rejected. So we'll look at another half year or year just to get back to having 56 docs disclosed and the P in a position to then call for more docs. I guess at this point really a two pony race (Fairholme, Perry) with the Fairholme Pony just tied to a post next to the pasture to graze for a while. Assuming there's Perry remand or reversal there will be a bit of movement but short of the government growing tired the returns keep ticking down (don't see it as likely that government will 'settle' as you guys all call it). So with prefs offering an 8.62x return but the ultimate holding period now stretching probably to 5 years or more (for me), it's an annualised return of 50% ish... not bad, but wouldn't it be nice if this was just over at the end of the year and we could book an actual cash return. ... I'm pretty sure there will be delays on all fronts - so the Perry pony may get back onto the track but it'll probably have to drag a lumber cart behind it. Make it six years and it's down to 43% p.a., go to 2019 and it's 36% .... They would not. Also, Sweeney just granted the government's request for an extension. she is being very careful, bending over backwards to seem reasonable....i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 "I guess at this point really a two pony race (Fairholme, Perry) with the Fairholme Pony just tied to a post next to the pasture to graze for a while." i think there is an iterative dynamic that hopefully will play out. if there's a perry remand, this will make the docs that will eventually be produced pursuant to fairholme become important for perry as well. plus, i would hope that in a perry remand there is a discussion of the law sufficient for judge sleet to let hindes/jacobs proceed past a motion to dismiss. so by analogy this is not just a linear horse race, but more of a chemical catalytic reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Thanks Chris - as always, appreciate the insight (and like the analogy) :D "I guess at this point really a two pony race (Fairholme, Perry) with the Fairholme Pony just tied to a post next to the pasture to graze for a while." i think there is an iterative dynamic that hopefully will play out. if there's a perry remand, this will make the docs that will eventually be produced pursuant to fairholme become important for perry as well. plus, i would hope that in a perry remand there is a discussion of the law sufficient for judge sleet to let hindes/jacobs proceed past a motion to dismiss. so by analogy this is not just a linear horse race, but more of a chemical catalytic reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Thanks Chris - as always, appreciate the insight (and like the analogy) :D "I guess at this point really a two pony race (Fairholme, Perry) with the Fairholme Pony just tied to a post next to the pasture to graze for a while." i think there is an iterative dynamic that hopefully will play out. if there's a perry remand, this will make the docs that will eventually be produced pursuant to fairholme become important for perry as well. plus, i would hope that in a perry remand there is a discussion of the law sufficient for judge sleet to let hindes/jacobs proceed past a motion to dismiss. so by analogy this is not just a linear horse race, but more of a chemical catalytic reaction. and if there is a perry affirmance, we can all go to see the movie, they shoot horses, dont they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 a question for the lawyers, please: ignoring the 31 day delay on the legal fees issue, how is it possible for the plaintiffs to not have received the 50 documents several weeks after the ruling? How hard is it to send them over? I think this is where most of the average person message board frustration comes in, for everyone who lives in the real world of deadlines and action, how / why is the legal system so different? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 a question for the lawyers, please: ignoring the 31 day delay on the legal fees issue, how is it possible for the plaintiffs to not have received the 50 documents several weeks after the ruling? How hard is it to send them over? I think this is where most of the average person message board frustration comes in, for everyone who lives in the real world of deadlines and action, how / why is the legal system so different? thanks this involves federal civil procedure in front of a court very few practice before, so it is not easy to understand why a federal judge granted a motion to compel but did not order D to deliver docs. usually federal court orders say at the end, it is so ordered. in Ps papers objecting to delay, they talk of a writ of mandamus, which is an ancient writ carried over into our legal system from english common law, whereby it seems Ds are considering whether to ask another court to obtain a writ against judge sweeney. why not a simple appeal, arguing that sweeney got the privilege/need for trial balancing all wrong. this is all news to me, and while i am not a federal litigator, i have been around the block more than once. so to answer your question, this is all confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 It's a bit pointless to order them to deliver the documents if they're going to appeal the decision anyway. So that's the pragmatic answer. That said, they haven't entered an appeal, so it's odd that there wasn't a direct order to turn over the documents. Like @cherzeca said, it's a weird situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 As a side note, we now have only 4 cases that were heard last term but have not yet been issued opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 As a side note, we now have only 4 cases that were heard last term but have not yet been issued opinions. So I've been keeping track of this, and I hope I'm wrong, but I see plenty of cases that have yet not been issued opinions. Been checking the https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/OpinionsByMonday?OpenView&StartKey=2016082016080812&Count=0&scode=0 site. Either I'm making a huge mistake, or there are actually a ton of cases yet waiting to be opined on from last session. I am also consistently seeing opinions from cases argued last Sept, Oct, Nov being released recently. According to my tracking, 30/37 from March have been released. 20/34 from April, and 12/24 from May. Below are the ones we are still waiting on from Mar-May: Case - Argument Date Independent Pilots Association 3/7/2016 DOJ v Daniel Chapter One 3/7/2016 Nieves Rocha 3/7/2016 Sandra Compton 3/17/2016 USA v Derrick Byas 3/21/2016 Grotheer & Company 3/22/2016 Act Now to Stop War 3/24/2016 Noble Energy 4/1/2016 U.S. Assoc of Reptile Keepers 4/1/2016 Dwight Robbins 4/4/2016 USA v Hector Orjuela 4/4/2016 City of Duluth 4/7/2016 Marquez Brothers Enterprises 4/7/2016 James Fulbright 4/12/2016 Flamingo 4/15/2016 Perry Capital 4/15/2016 Takeda Pharmaceuticals 4/15/2016 Matthew Corrigan 4/18/2016 Walter Freeman 4/18/2016 BCB Holdings Limited 4/19/2016 Newco Limited 4/19/2016 American Transmission Systems 5/4/2016 Washington Alliance 5/4/2016 Free Access 5/5/2016 USA v Rodney Class 5/5/2016 Modern Management Services 5/6/2016 William Boykin 5/6/2016 Lynn Johnson 5/9/2016 David Sickle 5/16/2016 Mary Turner 5/17/2016 USA vs Nizar Trabelsi 5/17/2016 Enyclopedia Britannica 5/20/2016 National Distribution Services 5/20/2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Maybe you missed them? http://www.cargoair.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DC-Cir-Per-Curiam-Judgment-3-24-2016.pdf That seems to be Independent Pilots Association. https://www.ferc.gov/legal/court-cases/opinions/2016/14-1085opn.pdf That seems to be American Transmission Systems listed further down the list. (Just a random choice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Maybe you missed them? http://www.cargoair.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DC-Cir-Per-Curiam-Judgment-3-24-2016.pdf That seems to be Independent Pilots Association. https://www.ferc.gov/legal/court-cases/opinions/2016/14-1085opn.pdf That seems to be American Transmission Systems listed further down the list. (Just a random choice.) Wow, I stand corrected. Another poster kindly informed me through PM that I've been looking at the wrong page. I was looking at the page titled "Opinions" but I should be looking at "Judgements", and that's why I've missed them. I guess not all decisions contain lengthy opinions, and that's the difference? In case anyone wants, here's the link to find "Judgements": https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/judgments.nsf/DocsByRDate?OpenView&count=100&SKey=201603 Sorry for misinforming anyone who paid attention to my several posts on this topic over the last couple of months. I'm happy I was wrong though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 i am too lazy to do this, but can anyone point to the 4 cases not yet decided? tia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 i am too lazy to do this, but can anyone point to the 4 cases not yet decided? tia One of them is Perry Capital. Someone else find the other 3. Thanks and yw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 I can do some of the Intern work. Act Now to Stop War U.S. Assoc of Reptile Keepers <--- Reptiles are a hot topic these days. City of Duluth Matthew Corrigan Perry Capital USA vs Nizar Trabelsi <---Soccer Player gone Terrorist. Prelim list. More edits to come as I go down Meph's list. Is there a location to find the cases heard during last term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now