ADAMS, et al v. USA

Filing 820

STATUS REPORT ORDER. The parties shall file a JSR on or before 7/24/2013 to apprise the court of the status of the claims in the subject; Should DOJ fail to authorize a global settlement that date or to identify a specified time frame for such, the Joint Status Report shall propose three dates for a status conference to be convened before August 15, 2013 in a courtroom in the National Courts Building. Status Report due by 7/24/2013. Signed by Judge Lynn J. Bush. (TQ) Copy to parties.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 90-162C
and Consolidated Cases
(Filed July 3, 2013)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * **
STEPHEN ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
On June 26, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, the 819th document
filed in the lead case of these consolidated cases originally filed in 1990. This
lawsuit has a long history before the undersigned judge. For many years, counsel
for the parties vigorously disputed close legal questions and industriously pursued
settlement of numerous and varied claims. Due to the consistent productivity of
counsel’s efforts, the court has, in recent years, allowed counsel to set the pace of
the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims, with only minimum guidance from the
undersigned.
Approximately six months ago, a substantial milestone was reached when
counsel announced an initiative to reach a global settlement of this litigation. See
Joint Status Report of January 15, 2013, at 2. Shortly thereafter, the Department of
Justice (DOJ or Justice) attorney who had handled this suit for many years left the
case and new counsel entered an appearance on behalf of DOJ. In March, the
parties reported that they had “reached a tentative agreement with respect to all
outstanding claims” and “all that remains is for the necessary authorizations to be
obtained.” Joint Status Report of March 20, 2013. However, since that time, in
three successive status reports, the government’s position appears to be that
Justice’s authorization of the global settlement terms is a process that can

reasonably take months to accomplish and that DOJ’s authorizing officials should
not be expected “to act by a date certain.” Joint Status Report of June 26, 2013, at
2.
The latest status report indicates that plaintiffs, at this point, are displeased
with the amount of time that it is taking for settlement authorization and request a
status conference to determine the basis for delay and to establish a timeline for
either its approval or rejection. Defendant would oppose any request for a
Court-imposed schedule that would compel reviewing officials within the
Department to complete their review by a date certain. See Joint Status Report of
June 26, 2013 (stating that “it is difficult if not impossible to plan or expect review
to occur by a particular time”).
Furthermore, the government takes umbrage with plaintiffs’ assertion that
there has been any delay by Justice in the approval process. Government counsel
articulates the position that delay only occurs when something has failed to happen
by an expected or planned deadline. Counsel goes on to state that since the
authorizing officials “have significant workloads, obligations, and travel
requirements, it is difficult if not impossible to plan or expect review to occur by a
particular time. . . . Thus, the failure to complete the review process does not
constitute a delay.” Joint Status Report of June 26, 2013. Essentially, the
government argues that because the authorizing officials are busy people, they
cannot be expected to identify and adhere to any particular time frame to act and
since there can be no concrete time frame there can be no delay. While the court
acknowledges the fact that the schedules of the authorizing officials are surely
burdened with obligations, it does not follow that this circumstance permits the
Justice Department to take a position that the authorization process is an open
ended one with no time constraints or considerations. Such an approach would be
neither appropriate nor productive.
In consideration of the foregoing circumstances, it is the court’s view that
the upcoming date of the parties’ next status report (July 24, 2013) provides ample
time for Justice to complete the settlement authorization process or, at the very
least, to specify a mutually agreeable date in the very near future for such
completion. In the event that the government is unable to comply with either of the
aforementioned options by that date, the parties shall propose in their joint status
report three dates before August 15, 2013 for appearance before the undersigned to
2

orally present their positions on further proceedings in this litigation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
(1)

The parties shall FILE a Joint Status Report, on or before July 24,
2013, to apprise the court of the status of the resolution of the claims
in the subject matter;

(2)

Should the Department of Justice fail to complete the authorization
process for a global settlement by that date or to identify an agreed
upon time frame for such, the Joint Status Report shall propose three
dates for a status conference to be convened before August 15, 2013
in a courtroom in the National Courts Building.

/s/Lynn J. Bush
LYNN J. BUSH
Judge

3