CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Will DOJ succeed in making Plaintiff Maureen Stevens respond to their motions before the GAO issues its September 2011 report?

Posted by DXer on August 12, 2011

Robert Stevens ... Florida anthrax victim



4 Responses to “* Will DOJ succeed in making Plaintiff Maureen Stevens respond to their motions before the GAO issues its September 2011 report?”

  1. DXer said

    In the Stevens litigation, Plaintiff asks to seal even those documents not subject to a protective order (which defeats the purpose of having standards governing such matters).

    As in other sorts of actions, by keeping as much of the discovery as possible secret, the Plaintiff’s counsel can increase the value of settling the matter to the defendant. The government is in a position to “buy” nondisclosure. In the case of alleged negligence against a governmental agency, it is easier to settle than to have the negligence on the record for the history books.

    Given the strong public interest in the national security issue of the anthrax mailings of Fall 2001, the federal district court judge should rule that those materials subject to the protective orders are properly filed under seal. Those that are not are not.

    It’s known as the rule of law.

    • DXer said

      If the judge seeks to seal material not subject to an existing protective order, some media should bring suit to have them unsealed.

    • DXer said

      The local rules tates:

      “Filings Made Under Seal:
      The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record.”

      The Plaintiff plans on filing a redacted version on September 16. So I may have misunderstood.

  2. DXer said

    ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 177 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Three Dispositive Motions. The request for an extension of time is granted, but the requested length of extension is denied. The time for plaintiff to file response in opposition to the defendant’s three dispositive motions is extended up to and including FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2011. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 8/12/2011. (tda) (Entered: 08/12/2011)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: