NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 94

Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Field, Brian)

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 94 Filed 05/11/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 16-745 (ESH)

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Court’s April 18, 2018 Order, the Parties provide this Status Report
regarding their positions as to further proceedings. See ECF No. 92. Specifically, the Court
requested that the Parties address three questions, each of which the Parties address below.
1.

Whether they have been able to reach agreement on what Courtroom Technology

expenses were permissible uses of PACER fees.
Defendant’s Position: On April 11, 2018, Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a summary
of the expenditures related to digital audio equipment (the “eight-row table” Plaintiffs mention
below). Specifically, this table showed that between FY10 and FY16, approximately $5.8
million of the Courtroom Technology expenditures went toward digital audio equipment. Since
then, Defendant has explained that these expenditures included all obligations incurred for the
acquisition and replacement of digital audio recording equipment. As Defendant further
explained, these expenses included digital audio recording equipment purchases and
replacement, including equipment for judges converting from using court reporters to digital
audio recording equipment, as well as for new judges. Excluded from these expenditures are
analog recording equipment, wiring, maintenance, or computer servers not used exclusively for

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 94 Filed 05/11/18 Page 2 of 4

recording. It appears that Plaintiffs wish to engage in discovery on this issue. Defendant
believes that any such discovery should await resolution of the question as to whether the Parties
will seek appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Plaintiffs’ Position: The government thus far has provided the plaintiffs with an eightrow table that lists on an annual basis the “Allotment” and “Total Obligation” for “Digital Audio
Recording Equipment.” The plaintiffs believe that some confirmatory discovery—especially of
contemporaneous materials—will be necessary to determine exactly what equipment is included
in this category, the costs associated with that equipment, and what was done with the apparent
surplus.
2.

Whether they are willing to file an application for appeal on the issue of liability

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Defendant’s Position: The Defendant does not yet have a position with respect to this
question.

As explained previously, the United States may not pursue an appeal without

authorization from the Solicitor General.

The process of considering the Court’s question

remains ongoing.
Plaintiffs’ Position: The plaintiffs await the Solicitor General’s decision.
3.

Whether they wish to pursue mediation and, if so, whether they have identified

potential mediators.
Defendant’s Position: Defendant has determined that it does not wish to participate in
mediation at this time.
Plaintiffs’ Position: In light of the risk to both sides in the wake of the Court’s recent
summary-judgment decision, and for many of the reasons already identified by the Court at the
last status conference, the plaintiffs continue to believe that the parties should engage in

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 94 Filed 05/11/18 Page 3 of 4

mediation. The plaintiffs’ counsel have made inquiries to identify local mediators qualified to
assist the parties in this matter. If the government remains unwilling to even discuss settlement,
however, the plaintiffs will have no choice but to move forward with discovery.
May 11, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
D.C. Bar #472845
United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN
D.C. Bar #924092
Chief, Civil Division
By:

/s/ Brian J. Field
BRIAN J. FIELD
D.C. Bar #985577
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant

By:

/s/ Deepak Gupta
Deepak Gupta (D.C. Bar No. 495451)
Jonathan E. Taylor (D.C. Bar No. 1015713)
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1900 L Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Elizabeth Smith (D.C. Bar No. 994263)
MOTLEY RICE LLC
401 9th Street, NW, Suite 1001
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
William H. Narwold (D.C. Bar No. 502352)

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 94 Filed 05/11/18 Page 4 of 4

MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Meghan S.B. Oliver (D.C. Bar No. 493416)
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiffs