Adams, et al v. USA

Filing 1974

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part and reserved in part 1947 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 1931 First MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiffs' Fraud, Assumed Duty and Other Claims Responses due by 7/22/2011. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

TIMM ADAMS, et al.,
Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW
Plaintiffs,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for enlargement of time and to clarify the manner in which
they are to respond to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The motion is fully briefed
and at issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the motion in part, extending
plaintiffs’ time to answer the initial round of motions, but deny the motion to the extent it seeks
to impose on defendants a new method for filing dispositive motions.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs allege that DuPont’s method of filing separate motions for each plaintiff is
overly burdensome, and they recommend filing motions by issue rather than by plaintiff.
DuPont and the BLM object, asserting that they have collected their legal arguments in a single
brief, and are entitled to an individualized examination of each plaintiffs’ claim. To resolve this
dispute, the Court will first examine DuPont’s method for filing these motions.
DuPont began by filing an “Omnibus Memorandum” that discussed the ten legal

Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

standards that applied to each plaintiff’s claim: (1) the general standard for granting summary
judgment, (2) limitations on recovery imposed by percentage rent agreements, (3) lack of
standing to assert claims belonging to business entities; (4) failure to disclose claims in
bankruptcy; (5) spoliation of evidence; (6) fraud; (7) the so-called “assumed duty of
stewardship”; (8) the requirement that claims for special damages such as lost future profits be
specifically pleaded; (9) limitations on the recovery of purely economic damages under the
economic loss rule; and (10) specific causation and damages.
Then, in a series of separate supporting memoranda – one for each plaintiff – DuPont
applied those legal principles to each plaintiff’s claims and identified those claims that should be
dismissed on summary judgment. DuPont is filing these individual memoranda on a rolling
basis. For example, on April 1, 2011, DuPont filed 20 of these individual memoranda covering
20 plaintiffs. Each memoranda was about 5 to 7 pages in length, and was accompanied by the
exhibits relating to that particular plaintiff. The number of exhibits filed for each plaintiff
varied, but averaged about 40 pages of material. About 4 weeks later, on April 27, 2011, DuPont
filed another batch of 20 memoranda, covering another group of 20 plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs propose reducing the number of summary judgment motions to nine motions
based upon the nine legal challenges listed by DuPont in its “Omnibus Motion.” Plaintiffs
concede that even with just nine motions, the facts of each of their claims must be taken into
account in the Court’s rulings, but argue that proceeding on an issue-by-issue basis will be more
efficient. Plaintiffs are not asking DuPont to re-file its motions, but only to identify (1) all
plaintiffs subject to each of its legal challenges and (2) the facts related to those plaintiffs before
plaintiffs are required to respond.

Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

At times in this litigation, the grouping of issues and/or parties streamlined the process
without sacrificing defendants’ right to challenge each plaintiff’s claims. Here, however, there is
no way around examining each plaintiff’s circumstance. It may be that certain legal rulings by
the Court will apply to a number of plaintiffs but the Court will nevertheless need to examine
each plaintiffs’ circumstance to identify which plaintiffs are governed by that ruling. The
method used by DuPont to file its motions gives the Court easy access to each plaintiff’s
individual circumstances. Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion to require DuPont
to file just nine dispositive motions.
The Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for additional time to respond to the “Omnibus
Motion” and the first twenty motions, and will set a deadline for plaintiffs’ response for July 22,
2011. Plaintiff also joins in plaintiff Roger Jones’ request for an indefinite extension pending the
resolution of Jones’ motion to withdraw. The Court will reserve ruling on that motion for
extension at this time, and will attempt to resolve the motion to withdraw expeditiously.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for enlargement of
time and to clarify (docket no. 1947) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND
RESERVED IN PART. It is granted to the extent it seeks to enlarge the time to respond to the
“Omnibus Motion” and first twenty motions for summary judgment (docket no. 1931) to July 22,
2011. It is denied to the extent it seeks to impose on DuPont a new method of filing dispositive
motions. It is reserved to the extent it relates to plaintiff Roger Jones.

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3

DATED: June 22, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 4