Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS Document 497 Filed 07/30/2009 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________
)
RAYMING CHANG, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
JEFFREY BARHAM, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)
v. )
)
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER

In view of the hearing held on July 29, 2009, and upon

consideration of all the matters discussed therein, it is by the

Court

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ proposal for further discovery in

these cases shall be filed by no later than August 12, 2009.

Also by no later than August 12, 2009, defendant the District of

Columbia (“District”) shall file a declaration, under penalty of

perjury, from Attorney General Peter Nickles. Attorney General

Nickles’s declaration shall address (1) the pattern of discovery

abuses engaged in and repeatedly acknowledged by the District

 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS Document 497 Filed 07/30/2009 Page 2 of 5

during the pendency of these cases; 2) the District’s plan for

both promptly concluding discovery in these cases and assuring

the Court, the parties, and the public that all discoverable

materials have been turned over to plaintiffs in these actions;

and (3) whether any investigations have been conducted into the

discovery violations and missing and/or destroyed evidence in

these cases and if not, why not.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ response to Mr.

Nickles’s declaration shall be filed by no later than August 26,

2009. The defendants’ response(s) to plaintiffs’ discovery

proposal shall also be filed by no later than August 26, 2009.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in view of the most recent

belated document productions by the District, plaintiffs’ motions

for sanctions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling upon

plaintiffs’ review of the newly produced evidence and

determination of what, if any, further discovery is needed.

Plaintiffs’ renewed motions for sanctions shall be filed by no

later than September 15, 2009; the District’s combined response

to the Barham and Chang plaintiffs’ motions shall be filed by no

later than October 15, 2009; and plaintiffs’ replies shall be

filed by no later than October 29, 2009.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that, upon further reflection by the

Court, the individual officers’ motions for judgment on the

pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed in

2
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS Document 497 Filed 07/30/2009 Page 3 of 5

the Chang action are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling at the

close of any future discovery to be conducted in these actions.

Consequently, the Chang plaintiffs’ motion to file a surreply to

the officers’ reply is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will set a

briefing schedule for the renewed motions when the relevant

issues are in a posture for resolution.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to

Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for (1) resolution of what, if any,

documents produced in camera as a result of the Court’s May 27,

2009 Order and in connection with the Chang plaintiffs’ motions

to compel against the District and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”) should be produced to the Chang plaintiffs;

and (2) a report and recommendation on the amount of attorney

fees and costs, if any, that the Rule 68 plaintiffs in the Barham

action are entitled to in excess of the $97,302.71 Ordered by the

Court on July 29, 2009 to be paid by the District to the

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund within ten days of that Order.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons stated in open

court on July 29, 2009, the Barham plaintiffs’ motion to compel

the FBI to conduct a name search through records collections is

GRANTED and the FBI’s motion to file a surreply in connection

with that motion is also GRANTED and the surreply deemed filed.

The FBI is directed to run the names of the named plaintiffs

through the data sources identified by plaintiffs and to disclose

3
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS Document 497 Filed 07/30/2009 Page 4 of 5

any positive results from the search regarding the maintenance

and use and dissemination, including intelligence-related use and

dissemination, of information and data related to the persons

arrested on September 27, 2002 in connection with the Pershing

Park mass arrest through a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or in

communications between counsel. Notwithstanding the deadline

previously provided by the Court at the hearing on July 29, 2009,

these searches must be conducted and the results disclosed to

plaintiffs by no later than September 15, 2009. Any claims of

privilege relating to such information must be brought to the

Court’s attention by the FBI by no later than September 15, 2009.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will hold a status

hearing on September 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A.

With respect to the filing of renewed motions, including but

not limited to the motions for sanctions and the motions for

judgment on the pleadings, the parties are advised not to refer

back to arguments made in prior pleadings. Rather, the parties

are directed to include all arguments, points, and authorities in

the newly filed pleadings. The parties are further directed to

hand-deliver to Judge Sullivan’s chambers one (1) copy of any and

all pleadings and exhibits filed from this point forward as well

as a binder containing one (1) copy of the principal authorities

relied upon by the party.

4
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS Document 497 Filed 07/30/2009 Page 5 of 5

Finally, the parties are admonished that future requests to

file surreplies will be viewed with extreme disfavor and close

scrutiny, and the Court will grant future requests for leave only

in exceedingly narrow circumstances such as a change in the law

or newly discovered information. The parties are on notice that

any new arguments made in replies and/or proposed surreplies that

could have been made in the original motion or response will

result in the striking of pleadings and/or other appropriate

remedies, which could include sanctions.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan

United States District Judge
July 30, 2009