Fannie Mae: Fairholme has filed an “Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Order”

Published on

Fairholme has filed an “Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Order” with the Federal Court of Claims. On 9/20 Judge Sweeney denied in their entirety the government’s reasoning for keeping 56 documents privileged.  The government has yet to comply with that order and from the wording below, has no intention to.

Sweeney is already pissed at the government for their tactics and has indicated she is going to order them to pay plaintiffs attorney’s fees for this dog and pony show. This is not going to endear them to her anymore. There are few things judges hate more than having an order simply ignored.  Appeal it or comply with it, don’t treat it like it doesn’t exist or you are above it.

The government has not appealed it to date because they know they cannot overcome her ruling. They are simply waiting for the Appeals Court to rule without this new information hoping it helps their case.

Based on he past action, I expect Sweeney to be displeased with the government

The request:

Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 344 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 3 2 Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.


Leave a Comment