Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 147-4

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 1 of 4

U.S.. Department of Justice Civil Division

JED:BMS :DHarrington DJ No. 154-93-655

Tel: (202) 616-0465 Fax: (202) 307-0972
Washington, D.C. 20530

March 27, 2007 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Harry J. Kelley, Esq. Nixon Peabody, LLP ¯ 40I Ninth Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004-2129 (202) 585-8712 Re: Anaheim Gardens, et al. v. United States, No. 93-655C (Fed. CI.~... Dear Mr. Kelley: " At your request, we are producing on a rolling basis documents responsive to the plaintiffs' first request for production of.documents in the Anaheim Gardens matter. Per our agreement, we are aiming to conclude the production of documents on or about April 9, 2007. However, one aspect of the requested production of documents in Anaheim Gardens is problematic. The operative complaint in Anaheim Gardens names the plaintiffS filing suit and identifies those projects for which compensation is being sought. See Fourth Amended Compl. ¶ 7 (filed Sept. 16, 1997).. The pending discovery seeks documents for "subject properties," which is defined generally as those projects "that are the Subject of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in this litigation." Pls.' First Request for Production of Does. ¶ 2. However, the definition of"subject properties" also includes a lengthy list of projects, many of which are not the subject of claims asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint.~ We will be producing documents for those projects referenced in the definition of "subject properties," but only insofar as they are identified in paragraph seven of the Fourth Amended Complaint in Anaheim Gardens. A list of the projects for which we are compiling and producing documents is attached to this letter. We will not be producing documents relating to projects that are not at issue, i.e., projects not listed in the operative complaint.

~ There is no analogous problem with the definition of"subject properties" used in the plaintiffs' first request for production in Algonquin Heights.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 147-4

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 2 of 4

.2I trust this approach will meet with your approval. However, if you do not agree with the parameters described in this letter, please contact me to discuss the matter further. Very truly yours,

David A. Harrington Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch

Enclosure cc: ¯ Terri L. Roman, Esq. Alice A. Peterson, Esq.

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 147-4

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 3 of 4

Document Production In Progress
Anaheim Gardens, et aL v. United States, No. 93-655 (Fed. C1.)..

Named Plaintiff Anaheim Gardens, LP B-L Associates, LP Joseph R. Biafora & Stefi Biafora

Project Name Anaheim .Gardens 1550 Beacon Plaza Millwood Apartments Part'henia Manor Apts.

Cedar Gardens Associates, GP C-W Associates, LP Glenview Gardens, LP Peter Hwei-Yang Hsi & Priscilla Lai-Fong Hsi Indian Head Manor LP I Norman M. Kronick & Louis Dulein Metro West Limited, LP ' Millwo0d Associates LP
Napa Park Apartments, LP

Cedar Gardens 100 Centre Plaza Glenview Gardens Apartments ¯ Waipahu Tower Indian Head Manor Apts Halawa View Apts

Metro West Apts. Millwood Townhouses Napa Park Apartments
omario Townhouses

Ontario Townhouses, LP

1

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 147-4

Filed 05/08/2007

Page 4 of 4

Named Plaintiff The Palomar Apartments, LP Rock Creek Terrace, LP sierra Vista One, LP Silverlake Village, LP Thetford Properties III, LP

Project Name
The Palomar

RockCreek Terrace Apts. Sierra VistaI Silverlake Village Ri-cer Falls Apts. Market North Apts II Deanswood Apts.

Thetford Properties IV, LP

Southgate Apts. Jefferson Court Apts. Glendale Court Apts. Market North Apts. I

620 Su Casa Por Coretz, GP 825 San Tomas Apartments, LP 5324 Foothill Apartments, GP

Su Casa Por Cortez San Tomas Gardens Foothill Plaza

2