UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TOYOBO CO. LTD et al

Filing 216

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 215 the parties' joint motion for a status conference. The parties shall appear for a status conference at 10:00 a.m. on October 12, 2017, and be prepared to discuss the issues identified in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 17, 2017. (lcplf2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOYOBO COMPANY, LTD., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,
AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D.,

Civil Action No. 04-0280 (PLF)

Civil Action No. 07-1144 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a status conference [Dkt. 487 in
Civil Action No. 04-0280; Dkt. 215 in Civil Action No. 07-1144]. The Court will grant the
motion. There are two primary issues to be decided at the status conference: (1) the prospect of
mediation, and (2) the parties’ pending motions to exclude expert witnesses under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
At the most recent status conference on May 11, 2016, the Court raised the issue
of the parties entering mediation — either with Magistrate Judge Kay, a court-appointed

mediator, or a privately retained mediator — prior to costly and lengthy pretrial and trial
proceedings. See Status Conference Hr’g Tr. at 6:19-8:5 (May 11, 2016) [Dkt. 472 in Civil
Action No. 04-0280]. The parties, with the exception of pro se defendant Thomas E. Bachner,
Jr., said that they were favorably disposed to proceeding to mediation. See id. at 14:19-29,
17:20-22; 25:16-19. Indeed, counsel for defendant Toyobo stated that “the problem thus far”
with mediation “has been because the Government and Toyobo have different views about
what’s left in the case,” and that “a decision on the pending motion[s] may help narrow exactly
what’s left in the case and what the issues are.” Id. at 17:23-18:3. The Court has since decided
the pending summary judgment motions to make clear what claims and issues remain in the case.
See United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017
WL 2992476 (D.D.C. July 14, 2017); Opinion and Order (Mar. 31 2017) [Dkt. 484 in Civil
Action No. 04-0280].
The Court is also aware that the parties’ 14 Daubert motions remain pending in
these related but not consolidated cases: Dkts. 375 & 376 in Civil Action 04-0280; Dkts. 123134 in Civil Action 07-1144. It is therefore
ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for a status conference [Dkt. 487 in Civil
Action No. 04-0280; Dkt. 215 in Civil Action No. 07-1144] is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference at
10:00 a.m. on October 12, 2017, and shall be prepared to discuss:
1.

Their views on mediation, including their choice of mediator;

2

2.

An approach to resolving the 14 pending Daubert motions, including:

(a) whether any are moot in light of the Court’s Opinions on summary judgment; (b) which
Daubert arguments overlap such that they can be consolidated into a single Daubert motion; and
(c) what dates the parties’ experts are available to testify at the Daubert hearing.
SO ORDERED.

__________/s/______________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE: August 17, 2017

3