Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 164

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER This will confirm the court's rulings on various issues during a hearing on August 22: Discovery Deadline. Plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery until September 28 is GRANTED. The parties will agree to a schedule for the depositions that the court will treat as binding. Requests for Admissions. Plaintiffs' motion for relief pursuant to Rule 36(b) is GRANTED. The Government's Second and Third Sets of Admissions with respect to the Carriage House and Cambridge Square plaintiffs are not deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a). The discovery rules provide for the efficient exchange of discoverable information among litigants. We attempt to avoid permitting judgment by default or on any basis other than established facts. Nos. 93-655 C Filed: August 24, 2007

ANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. * * * *

Two additional matters were plaintiffs' "renewed" motion to amend the First Amended Complaint in Algonquin Heights and defendant's motion for a protective order in Anaheim Gardens. Algonquin Heights. Rule 15(a) was satisfied with respect to four plaintiffs, Briar Hills, Briar Hills II, Briar Crest and the United Co., when the Government agreed to plaintiffs' request to amend the Complaint in spring 1998. Documentary evidence demonstrates that defendant did not oppose plaintiffs' amending the Complaint then. Though not required, plaintiffs sought leave of court to file the Amended Complaint.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 164

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 2 of 2

Their motion was styled an "uncontested" motion. Plaintiffs' renewed motion to amend is moot and therefore DENIED. The Government must file a responsive pleading to the Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of this order. Anaheim Gardens. We have not found a dilatory motive or undue delay on plaintiffs' part with respect to the twenty-three additional Thetford properties. The parties commenced discovery only last year. The Thetford properties participated in HUD's mortgage insurance programs that are the subject of these takings claims. The Government has not shown that the Thetford plaintiffs' discovery requests are "likely to oppress [the Government] or might otherwise impose an undue burden." Forest Prods. Nw., Inc. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Government has not produced evidence that documents and witnesses with information about the Thetford properties are not available. Discovery is ongoing; the court has agreed to enlarge discovery an additional month. We have no trial date. The twenty-three additional Thetford projects are located in the same state as the Thetford III and IV properties. The likelihood of prejudice to defendant is minimal. The Government's motion for a protective order is DENIED. The court will afford every reasonable accommodation to the parties. Plaintiffs and defendant should confer and submit to the court the earliest possible certain date for close of discovery. We are available at any time to discuss these or other matters concerning these cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Robert H. Hodges, Jr. Robert H. Hodges, Jr. Judge

2