I wanted to offer a brief analysis on the 2 status reports filed yesterday in the Fairholme lawsuit. The status reports concerned Judge Sweeneys order given last Thursday June 19,2014. The order read in part “The parties shall file respective status reports proposing date ranges for document production in response to plaintiffs’ document requests, including their reasoning for such proposals, no later than Monday, June 23, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. In addition, the parties shall file a proposed protective order no later than Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.” The government basically issued a duplicate of what they proposed during oral arguments last Thursday. Fairholmes attorneys further addressed their arguments to expand the first wave of discovery beyond the dates that the government is asking for.Rather than analyze the death out of the Fairholme lawsuit pretrial debate over discovery dates I have been told we should turn our attention to the Perry injunction. I have heard mixed opinions on what is transpiring, but I feel I should post this now.
In the Perry injunction on June 5th Judge Lamberth postponed the motions hearing that was scheduled for yesterday, June 23,2014. I am going to post the two motions before the Judge Lamberth awaiting a decision. Two days prior to Judge Lamberth postponing the motions hearing Perry’s attorneys submitted their support for summary judgement. I am posting that as well.Essentially we were to have the motion hearing yesterday than it would be decision time. Although Judge Lamberth could forego the motions hearing if he felt one sides case was ironclad I personally would be surprised if this were the case. Others feel that Perrys attorneys do have that strong of a case and the decision may be forthcoming. I wanted to get this post up ASAP, and more analysis will be forthcoming. Keep the faith!

6:2:14 Perry reply in support of summar judgement.

3:14 Perry proposed order 2

1:17:14 Governments proposed motion to dismiss. 2