Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02166/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02166-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS

LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant,

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Proposed Intervenor. /

No. C 14-02166 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO INTERVENE

In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, third party Sikorsky Aircraft

Corporation moves to intervene, solely for the purposes of appeal. For the reasons stated below,

Sikorsky’s motion is GRANTED. 

The facts of this case are discussed in detail in the order denying the parties’ cross

motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 28). In brief, plaintiff American Small Business

League is an organization that promotes the interests of small businesses. 

On August 9, 2013, and under the Freedom of Information Act, plaintiff requested the

following document from defendant agency Department of Defense: “[t]he most recent master

[C]omprehensive [S]ubcontracting [P]lan submitted by Sikorksy Aircraft Corporation for

participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program for the Department of

Defense” (Belshaw Decl. Exh. A). 

Case 3:14-cv-02166-WHA Document 48 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On September 3, 2013, the agency denied plaintiff’s FOIA request. After an appeal of

the agency’s response, which has yet to be answered, plaintiff began the present action. On

November 20, 2014, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment were denied and the

agency was ordered to release Sikorsky’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan to plaintiff by

January 22, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 28, 32).

Now, third party Sikorsky moves to intervene because Sikorsky is uncertain whether the

agency will appeal the order requiring it to turn over the document at issue. 

The main issue is whether Sikorsky’s motion to intervene is timely. Under FRCP 24,

timeliness is determined with reference to three factors: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which

an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and

length of the delay.” Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Comm. Realty Projects, Inc., 309

F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). 

This order finds that Sikorsky’s motion to intervene, solely for the purposes of appeal, is

timely. While Sikorsky should not have sat on the sidelines and waited this long to intervene, its

intervention will not prejudice plaintiff or any other party. Furthermore, as the motion to

intervene is solely for appeal purposes, it will not cause further delay in the district court.

At oral argument, plaintiff acknowledged that it will not suffer any prejudice due to

Sikorsky’s intervention. Rather, plaintiff objected that allowing Sikorsky to intervene at this

stage is simply unfair, as Sikorsky does not have a valid excuse for its delay. Although this

order agrees that Sikorsky should not have waited so long, Sikorsky will be allowed to intervene.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Sikorsky’s motion to intervene, solely for appeal purposes,

is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02166-WHA Document 48 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 2