American Small Business League v. Department of Defense

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING 36 MOTION TO INTERVENE.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 No. C 14-02166 WHA Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE, 12 13 14 15 16 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant, SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION Proposed Intervenor. / 17 18 In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, third party Sikorsky Aircraft 19 Corporation moves to intervene, solely for the purposes of appeal. For the reasons stated below, 20 Sikorsky’s motion is GRANTED. 21 The facts of this case are discussed in detail in the order denying the parties’ cross 22 motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 28). In brief, plaintiff American Small Business 23 League is an organization that promotes the interests of small businesses. 24 On August 9, 2013, and under the Freedom of Information Act, plaintiff requested the 25 following document from defendant agency Department of Defense: “[t]he most recent master 26 [C]omprehensive [S]ubcontracting [P]lan submitted by Sikorksy Aircraft Corporation for 27 participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program for the Department of 28 Defense” (Belshaw Decl. Exh. A). 1 On September 3, 2013, the agency denied plaintiff’s FOIA request. After an appeal of 2 the agency’s response, which has yet to be answered, plaintiff began the present action. On 3 November 20, 2014, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment were denied and the 4 agency was ordered to release Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan to plaintiff by 5 January 22, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 28, 32). 6 7 8 9 Now, third party Sikorsky moves to intervene because Sikorsky is uncertain whether the agency will appeal the order requiring it to turn over the document at issue. The main issue is whether Sikorsky’s motion to intervene is timely. Under FRCP 24, timeliness is determined with reference to three factors: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 length of the delay.” Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Comm. Realty Projects, Inc., 309 12 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 This order finds that Sikorsky’s motion to intervene, solely for the purposes of appeal, is 14 timely. While Sikorsky should not have sat on the sidelines and waited this long to intervene, its 15 intervention will not prejudice plaintiff or any other party. Furthermore, as the motion to 16 intervene is solely for appeal purposes, it will not cause further delay in the district court. 17 At oral argument, plaintiff acknowledged that it will not suffer any prejudice due to 18 Sikorsky’s intervention. Rather, plaintiff objected that allowing Sikorsky to intervene at this 19 stage is simply unfair, as Sikorsky does not have a valid excuse for its delay. Although this 20 order agrees that Sikorsky should not have waited so long, Sikorsky will be allowed to intervene. 21 CONCLUSION 22 23 For the reasons stated above, Sikorsky’s motion to intervene, solely for appeal purposes, is GRANTED. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

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?