Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE- (Fairholme Lawsuit) via TimHoward717.com
The joint status report regarding the discovery completion date is out. I would have to say this is likely the reason for the price slide last week.If indeed this was the reason it only shows the level of ignorance that is still out there. I want to call attention to this passage “so long as Defendant produces such documents on a rolling and fairly regular basis over that four-month period, the parties would need about another ten weeks to complete remaining discovery (e.g., depositions)” The case will be over at the conclusion of discovery. As I have said again and again, for the government to comply with discovery means the end of their absurd defense. Our investigation has turned up more than enough evidence to prove the government guilty beyond any doubt; I can only imagine what Fairholme discovery will turn up. I will be posting on this over next week. First I want to complete my post based on a short meeting with House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.). I hope to have it up by tonight to offer a little clarity to those of you who have decided to sell Fannie Mae (OTCB:FNMA) short. His first statement was ” Fannie and Freddie aren’t going anywhere” Keep the Faith!
9:5:14 JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE 21
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
)
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 13-465C
) (Judge Sweeney)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING
PROPOSED DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE
In accordance with this Court’s Order dated August 13, 2014 (Doc. 85), the parties have
conferred about a proposed date for the completion of the discovery that was originally authorized
by the Court in its Order of February 26, 2014 (Doc. 32). The parties agree that it is likely
that such discovery can be completed by March 27, 2015. This proposed discovery completion
date is based on the following considerations:
Defendant currently estimates that it should be able to complete the production of
nonprivileged, responsive documents in accordance with the Court’s July 16, 2014 Order (Doc.
72) within approximately four months – i.e., by the middle of January 2015.1 Fairholme cur-
rently estimates that, so long as Defendant produces such documents on a rolling and fairly regular
basis over that four-month period, the parties would need about another ten weeks to complete
remaining discovery (e.g., depositions), and to resolve any remaining discovery disputes
regarding such matters as the completeness of Defendant’s productions and any assertions of
privilege. Defendant reserves the right to request additional time for document discovery should
anything unforeseen arise during the four month period allocated for this purpose.
In making this proposal, Fairholme reserves the right, as acknowledged by the Court in
its July 16 Order, to propose that the Court allow a second phase of discovery, to include the production
of documents created during time frames different from those governing this phase of
discovery, and to propose a different date for the completion of such second phase. See, e.g.,
July 16 Order at 3-4. Defendant reserves the right to object to any such proposal.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully propose that the Court set a March 27,
2015 date for the completion of the discovery that it has authorized under its previous orders.
1 As the Court is aware from the discussion at the most recent status conference held on
August 13, the parties have not been able to agree on whether Defendant is fully complying with
its obligations to respond to Fairholme’s outstanding discovery requests. Since the August 13
status conference, the parties have engaged in numerous discussions in an attempt to resolve this
dispute, and have exchanged multiple proposals on this topic. Those discussions are ongoing,
and while no final agreement has yet been reached, the parties have made significant progress
and are hopeful that they will soon either reach a global agreement on this issue or narrow any
areas of dispute that would need to be resolved by the Court.
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 90 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 3
2
Date: September 5, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
s/ Robert E. Kirschman, Jr.
ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.
Director
s/ Kenneth M. Dintzer
KENNETH M. DINTZER
Acting Deputy Director
Commercial Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 616-0385
(202) 307-0972 fax
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
[email protected]
Of counsel:
Vincent J. Colatriano
David H. Thompson
Peter A. Patterson
Brian W. Barnes
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 90 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 3
3
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 90 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 3
