Pinnacle Armor, Inc. vs. USA
Filing
89
STIPULATION and ORDER re: Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 4/19/2013. (Kusamura, W)
1
ERIC H. SAIKI (SBN 155762)
2
4
RADCLIFF & SAIKI LLP
21515 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 650
Torrance, CA 90503
Telephone: (310) 698-0600
Facsimile: (310) 698-0601
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff, PINNACLE ARMOR, INC.
3
esaiki@radcliffsaiki.com
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PINNACLE ARMOR, INC,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
1:07-cv-01655-LJO-SAB
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND
ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND ORDER
20130419.0948
1
2
3
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff on the one hand, and Defendant,
on the other hand, by and through their counsel of record, that:
1.
On February 12, 2013, the Court issued its Order re Plaintiff’s Motion to
4
Supplement the Administrative Record (ECF 81). The Order allowed Plaintiff to file a very
5
narrow motion for discovery to uncover whether the National Institute of Justice (“NIJ”)
6
considered additional data from the Army or DOD, and set the deadline for filing said motion for
7
March 1, 2013
8
9
10
11
2.
Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred over a
stipulation as to the nature of any discovery and/or to supplement the Revised Administrative
Record (“RAR”) with Army or DOD data.
3.
On February 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order, based on the stipulation of the
12
parties, extending the deadlines for the filing of the discovery motion and response, to March 29,
13
2013, and April 5, 2013, respectively.
14
4.
Due to the continuing discussions of the parties, additional time was required to
15
attempt to resolve the remaining discovery issues in order to obviate the need for a discovery
16
motion. Accordingly, on April 4, 2013, the Court issued a further Order based on the stipulation
17
of the parties, extending the deadlines for the filing of the discovery motion and response to
18
April 19, 2013, with the response deadline continued accordingly to April 26, 2013.
19
20
21
22
5.
The parties were subsequently able to stipulate to some, but not all of, the
information sought by Plaintiff.
6.
With respect to the information sought, Plaintiff requested that the NIJ provide
documents and/or information regarding:
23
a. Any and all documents sent by the Army and/or the Department of
24
Defense (“DoD”) to the NIJ or its affiliated offices regarding Pinnacle
25
Armor, Inc.’s products during the years 2006 and 2007;
26
b. Any and all documents sent by the NIJ or its affiliated offices to the Army
27
and/or DoD regarding Pinnacle Armor Inc.’s products during the years
28
2006 and 2007;
2
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND ORDER
20130419.0948
1
c. Any and all documents received by the NIJ or its affiliated offices from
2
any source which it is aware was also provided to or possessed by the
3
Army and/or DoD regarding Pinnacle Armor Inc.’s products during the
4
years 2006 and 2007;
5
d. Any and all transmittal letters, cover sheets, or the like which
6
accompanied any of the material in items [a through c] above;
7
7.
In response to these four requests, the NIJ responded that the only documents it
8
had that were responsive to these requests were already in the Revised Administrative Record.
9
Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that formal written discovery would not result in the
10
production of any additional documents that were not already in the Revised Administrative
11
Record.
12
8.
Plaintiff also requested information on the nature and substance of any
13
conversations that took place between the NIJ, on the one hand, and the Army/DOD, on the
14
other. The questions were as follows:
15
a. Please identify any and all persons from or affiliated with the Army and/or
16
DoD who had conversations with NIJ personnel or affiliated offices
17
regarding Pinnacle Armor Inc.’s products during the years 2006 and 2007;
18
b. Please identify any and all persons from or affiliated with the NIJ or its
19
affiliated offices who had any conversation with the Army and/or DoD
20
regarding Pinnacle Armor Inc.’s products during the years 2006 and 2007;
21
c. Please state the substance of any and all conversations identified in items
22
23
[a and b] above.
9.
The NIJ responded that conversations between it and the Army/DOD did indeed
24
take place regarding Pinnacle Armor, Inc.’s products during the years 2006 and 2007, but that it
25
would not state the substance of those conversations. The NIJ further responded that the
26
identities of the persons who may have participated in such conversations could be gleaned from
27
the Revised Administrative Record, but declined to provide plaintiff with a list of individuals
28
who actually had engaged in such conversations.
3
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND ORDER
20130419.0948
1
10.
Accordingly the parties have been unable to reach a complete agreement as to the
2
documents or information that would supplement the Revised Administrative Record. Plaintiff
3
therefore will file a discovery motion on April 19, 2013, which the NIJ will oppose on April 26,
4
2013, as authorized by the February 12, 2013 Order.
5
11.
The parties have agreed, however, that once the ruling on the discovery motion,
6
and any discovery as may be allowed is completed, that the case may be resolved on the parties’
7
cross-motions for summary judgment in accordance with a briefing schedule generally as
8
follows:
9
a. The NIJ will file its Motion for Summary Judgment;
10
b. Plaintiff will file its Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary
11
Judgment;
12
c. The NIJ will file its Opposition and Reply in Support of its Motion for
13
Summary Judgment;
14
d. Plaintiff will file its Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary
15
Judgment.
16
12.
The parties agree that the final briefing schedule should take into account counsel
17
for the parties’ existing work commitments and trial schedules and they will confer on proposing
18
a briefing schedule to the court.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND ORDER
20130419.0948
1
13.
In light of the parties’ decision to file cross-motions for summary judgment, the
2
NIJ agrees to withdraw its Third Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary
3
Judgment, ECF No. 64.1
4
5
Dated: April 19, 2013
RADCLIFF & SAIKI, LLP
6
8
By: /s/ Eric H. Saiki
Eric H. Saiki
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
PINNACLE ARMOR, INC.
7
10
Dated: April 19, 2013
12
By: /s/ Tamra T. Moore
Tamra T. Moore
Attorneys for Defendant
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
11
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
April 19, 2013
_
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
DEAC_Sig nature-END:
21
i1eed4
22
23
24
25
1
26
27
28
Although this Court has ruled that plaintiff’s suit is not moot, see, e.g., Oct. 26, 2012 Order,
ECF No. 69, the NIJ respectfully disagrees with the Court’s conclusion and contends that this
suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The NIJ reserves its right to raise this argument
should any appeal follow. Notwithstanding the NIJ’s contention that jurisdiction does not exist
in this case, the agency will move for summary judgment in accordance with this Court’s
October 26, 2012 Order.
5
STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY AND ORDER
20130419.0948
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?