Free Motion for Status Conference - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 93-655C (Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.)

ALGONQUIN HEIGHTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 97-582C (Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.)

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF DISPUTE REGARDING DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED STATUS CONFERENCE Defendant, the United States, is filing this notice to apprise the Court of a dispute regarding further discovery and to request that the Court promptly schedule a status conference to address this issue. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2006, the Court directed that discovery on the issue of ripeness proceed in these actions. Ripeness discovery is currently scheduled to close on December 7, 2007. Parties are entitled to serve a total of 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts, without leave of court. RCFC 33(a). Leave to serve additional interrogatories "shall be granted" by the Court consistent with the principles of RCFC 26(b)(2). Id.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 2 of 5

The United States has served a total of 23 interrogatories to date. Plaintiffs have previously taken the position ­ without providing a specific explanation ­ that the United States has served in excess of 25 interrogatories. See Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Third Set of Interrogs. at 5-9 (served June 20, 2007) (attached as Exhibit A). The United States disagrees and avers that it is entitled to serve two additional interrogatories without obtaining leave from the Court.1 DISCUSSION The United States seeks to serve the following two interrogatories to ascertain the plaintiffs' position on ripeness in these actions: INTERROGATORY NO. 24: For each subject property, if you contend that ELIHPA effected a regulatory taking, state the date that you contend that the claim that ELIPHA effected a regulatory taking ripened. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: For each subject property, if you contend that LIHPRHA effected a regulatory taking, state the date that you contend the claim that LIHPRHA effected a regulatory taking ripened. These interrogatories are simple, straightforward, and will present no burden to answer. They are timely in that they will be served more than 30 days before the close of discovery.2 Order of Judge Hodges at 1 (Sept. 21, 2007) (establishing December 7, 2007 as the close of ripeness

Should the Court conclude that, including discrete subparts, the United States has served 25 interrogatories, the United States respectfully requests leave to serve two additional interrogatories. Plaintiffs have previously argued that contention interrogatories should be served near the end of discovery. See Pls.' Response to Def.'s Mot. to Compel at 8-10 (filed March 23, 2007). 2
2

1

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 3 of 5

discovery). And they are proper in that they go to the crux of the ripeness issue currently pending before the Court. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will object to these interrogatories as exceeding the number of interrogatories allowed under Rule 33 and perhaps on other grounds. The United States, therefore, anticipates that it will receive no substantive response if it simply serves these interrogatories upon plaintiffs. The information requested by these interrogatories is necessary to brief summary judgment motions following the close of ripeness discovery. The parties' dispute concerning the proposed interrogatories is simple and well-defined. And the prompt resolution of this issue will help ensure that ripeness discovery is completed by the December 7, 2007 deadline. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court expedite the scheduling of a status conference to address the propriety of the United States' proposed interrogatories. Counsel for the United States currently is available to participate in a status conference any day this week (i.e., October 16-19, 2007). CONCLUSION For these reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court promptly schedule a status conference to address the two interrogatories that the United States seeks to serve in these actions. PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

3

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 4 of 5

s/ Brian M. Simkin BRIAN M. SIMKIN Assistant Director s/ David A. Harrington DAVID A. HARRINGTON Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-0277 Fax: (202) 307-0972 October 15, 2007 Attorneys for Defendant

4

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on the 15th day of October 2007, a copy of "DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF DISPUTE REGARDING DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED STATUS CONFERENCE" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ David A. Harrington

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

ANAHEIM GARDENS, ET AL., Plaintiffs

- VS -

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES No. 93-655C Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, Plaintiffs, Anaheim Gardens, B-L Associates, Joseph R. Biafora and Stefi Biafora, C-W Associates, L.P., Cedar Gardens Associates, Glenview Gardens L.P., Peter Hwei-Yang Hsi and Priscilla Lai-Fong Hsi, Indian Head Manor L.P. I, Norman M. Kronick and Louis Dulien, Metro West Ltd., L.P., Millwood Associates, L.P., Napa Park Apartments, L.P., Ontario Townhouses, L.P., The Palomar Apartments, L.P., Rock Creek Terrace, L.P., Sierra Vista One, L.P., Silverlake Village, L.P., Thetford Properties III, Thetford Properties IV, 620 Su Casa Pot Cortez, 825 San. Tomas Apartments, L.P., and 5234 Foothill Apartments1 ("Plaintiffs"), by their attorneys Nixon Peabody LLP, make the following general and specific objections to the "Defendant's Third Set of Interrogatories" (collectively, "Interrogatories" and individually, each an "interrogatory") propounded by Defendant, The United States.

Plaintiffs respond on behalf of the following subject properties: Anaheim Gardens, 1550 Beacon Plaza, 100 Centre Plaza, Cedar Gardens, Glenview Gardens Apartments, Indian Head Manor Apartments, Millwood Apartments, Metro West Apartments, Millwood Townhouses, Napa Park Apartments, Halawa View Apartments, Ontario Townhouses, Parthenia Manor Apartments, Waipahu Tower, Rock Creek Terrace Apartments, Sierra Vista I, Silverlake Village, The Palomar, River Falls Apartments, Market North Apartments II, Washington Street Apartment d/b/a Deanswood Apartments, Glendale Court Apartments, Jefferson Court Apartments, Market North Apartments I, Southgate Apartments, Su Casa Por Cortez, San Tomas Gardens, and Foothill Plaza.

10624420.1

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 2 of 10

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs object to the Interrogatories that attempt to elicit documents or

information that are or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and any other legally cognizable privilege or protection from disclosure. Inadvertent disclosure of any privileged or protected information shall not be a waiver of any claim or privilege or protection. 2. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory that is vague, ambiguous, irrelevant to the

claim of ripeness, overbroad, calculated to cause undue burden and expense, and/or that seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery. 3. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory that seeks information not within its

possession, custody, or control. 4. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory that seeks documents or information within

Defendant's knowledge and possession or to which Defendant has equal access. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory that contains terms or phrases that are undefined. 6.
Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory that is unlimited in time or otherwise not

limited to a reasonable time framerelevant to this litigation. 7. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent that discovery is ongoing in

this matter, and it may not yet be in possession of all information necessary to respond in full to the Interrogatory. In this event, Plaintiff will supplement its answer at the appropriate time. 8. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory including the instructions and definitions

thereto that impose discovery obligations that exceed the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 3 of 10

The foregoing General Objections are incorporated by reference within each of its answers and all answers are made subject to, and without waiving, those General Objections, whether or not specifically reiterated in the answers themselves.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 4 of 10

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify every owner, including general partners and limited partners, current and former, who invested in each of the subject properties. For each owner indicate their ownership interest, the period of time for which that ownership interest was held, and any other subject property in which that owner invested. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 1 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. Further, Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 1 as the response to this request.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

For each subject property describe in detail all actions taken pursuant to the administrative process established in ELIHPA including, but not limited to, whether you submitted a notice of intent to HUD, the date upon which any notice of intent was submitted to HUD, the stated purpose of the notice of intent (e.g., prepayment, sale, incentive), the date upon which you submitted an appraisal to HUD, whether you submitted a plan of action to HUD, the date upon which any plan of action was submitted to HUD, the purpose of any plan of action submitted to HUD (e.g., prepayment, sale or incentives), the date upon which any submitted plan of action was approved or rejected by HUD, the date upon which any funding for any approved plan of action was provided by HUD, the date upon which you executed any use agreement

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 5 of 10

concerning the subject property, the date upon which any sale of the subject property was consummated, and the date upon which you prepaid the Government-insured mortgage upon the subject property.
RESPONSE:

In addition to the stated General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is largely duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 2 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that to the extent it is not duplicative of Interrogatory No. 2 it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask Plaintiffs without leave of Court. To the extent this interrogatory is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 2 as the response to this request.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

For each subject property describe in detail all actions taken pursuant to the administrative process established in LIHPRHA including, but not limited to, whether you submitted a notice of intent to HUD, the date upon which any notice of intent was submitted to HUD, the stated purpose of the notice of intent (e.g., prepayment, sale, incentive), the date upon which you submitted an appraisal to HUD, whether you submitted a plan of action to HUD, the date upon which any plan of action was submitted to HUD, the purpose of any plan of action submitted to HUD (e.g., prepayment, sale or incentives), the date upon which any submitted plan of action was approved or rejected by HUD, the date upon which any funding for any approved plan of action was provided by HUD, the date upon which you executed any use agreement

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 6 of 10

concerning the subject property, the date upon which any sale of the subject property was consummated, and the date upon which you prepaid the Government-insured mortgage upon the subject property. RESPONSE:
In addition to the stated General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is largely duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 3 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that to the extent it is not duplicative of Interrogatory No. 3 it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask Plaintiffs without leave of Court. To the extent this interrogatory is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 3, Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 3 as the response to this request.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: For each subject property, describe in detail all communications between you and HUD relating to the possible prepayment of the property's Government-insured mortgage. RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 4 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask of Plaintiffs without leave of Court.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 7 of 10

Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 4 as the response to this request.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

For each subject property, state whether you contend that HUD reached a final decision regarding application of ELIHPA to the subject property such that your as-applied taking claim ripened and, if so, identify the date upon which you contend HUD reached this final decision and state all facts upon which you base your contention.
RESPONSE:

In addition to the stated General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is largely duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 5 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition,. Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that to the extent it is not duplicative of Interrogatory No. 5 it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask Plaintiffs without leave of Court. To the extent this interrogatory is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 5, Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 5 as the response to this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: For each subject property, state whether you contend that HUD reached a final decision regarding application of LIHPRHA to the subject property such that your as-applied taking claim ripened and, if so, identify the date upon which you contend HUD reached this final decision and state all facts upon which you base your contention.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 8 of 10

RESPONSE:

In addition to the stated General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is largely duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 6 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that to the extent it is not duplicative of Interrogatory No. 6 it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask Plaintiffs without leave of Court. To the extent this interrogatory is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 6, Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 6 as the response to this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: For each subject property, state whether you contend that applying to prepay pursuant to the Preservation States was futile and, if so, state all facts upon which you base your contention.
RESPONSE:

In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs object to interrogatory on the ground that it is duplicative of Defendant's Interrogatory No. 7 propounded in Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it exceeds the number of interrogatories Defendant is permitted to ask of Plaintiffs without leave of Court. Plaintiffs incorporate both the objections and responses previously provided to Defendant in response to Interrogatory No. 7 as the response to this request.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 9 of 10

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: For each request to admission to which you responded with anything other than an unqualified admission, describe in detail the basis for your answer. RESPONSE:
Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad and burdensome. Where an admission or denial is a qualified in Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant's Third Set of Requests for Admission, the basis for the qualification is stated in the response to the request. Dated: June 20, 2007

Respectfully Submitted:

NIXON ]~EABODY LL~ 401 9th S~reet N.W., Suit- ~900 Washington, D.C. 2004 (202) 585-8000 Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 168-2

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that two (2) true and correct copies of the forgoing were served this 20th day of June, 2007, by federal express, upon the following: David Harrington, Esq. Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W. Room 12136 Washington, DC 20530