FAWZ IKHAL ED A.F . AL ODAH, e t al

. , Pe tit ion e rs , v . UN I TE D ST AT ES, Re sp on de nts . UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 02-828 ( CKK)

ORDER DENYING

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION F OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE C OU RT ’S F EBR UA RY12 , 2 00 9 OR DE R (April 6, 2009) [T] here arestandards whi ch a Gov ernme nt counsel should mee t to uphold the dignity of the Governm ent . . . their conduc t [must] reflect that they areofficers of the court as well as advocates for a cause

... -Taylor v. United States , 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 ( D.C. Cir. 1969). The instant Motion for Reconside ration has its orig ins in three previous Or ders issued by the Court that require d Respondents to file an Opposition to a motion filed by Petitioners titl ed Motion for Production of Complete Dec lassified F actua l Returns. Respondents’ counse l violated
a ll thr e e Or de rs by

fa ili ngto f

ile an O pp os iti on . T he thi rd of the Court ’s Or de rs sp e c if ic a lly
war ned Respondents that the Court would c onsider sanc tions for furthe r non-c ompliance. Not only did Respondents’ counse l fail to file an Opposition as orde red by the Court, he neve r moved fo r a n e xten sio n o r e ve n s up pli e d a n e xplanatio n f

or his c on du c t. The Court held a

closed-se ssion St atus Hea ringon Fe bruar

y 11, 2009, duringwhich the Court e xpla ine d to Re sp on de nts ’ c ouns e l and his su pe rv iso r ( wh om t

he Court re qu e ste d to be in attendanc e) that its Orders we re not a spirational, and that c ounsel’s complianc e wa s not optional. The Court expects its Order s to be followed a nd, wher e additional time is neede d for c ompliance,2

that c ouns e l w ill a

pp ro pr iate ly

mov e fo r e xten sio ns . T he Court fu rt he r e xpla ine d th a t th e c ours e of conduc t chosen by

counsel–simply

ignor ing the Orde rs of the Court a s if they wer e not issued–would not be tolerated. Takingthe fore g oing into conside ration, on F ebrua ry 12, 2009, the Court issued an Or der requiringRespondents to assig n new c ounsel to this case. The Court expl ained that

“ Re sp on de nts ’ c ouns e l ha [d] r e pe ate dly fl oute d th e de a dli ne s se t by [the ] Court

and fa ile d to
c omp ly wi th i ts Sc he du lin g Or de r, ” and that “ [t]he Court

ha [d] lo st c on fi de nc e in R e sp on de nts ’
curr ent counse l[ ] and . . . [ did] not view his repr esentations as cre dible.” Or der at 7-8 (F eb. 12, 2009). The Court a lso emphasized that the cre dibilit y of counse l’s repr esentations in t his matter (which involves the de tention of four individuals at Gua ntanamo B ay

) wa s particular ly

important be c a us e Pe tit ion e rs ’ c ouns e l is no t in a po sit ion to i nd e pe nd e ntl y

ve ri fy many of Re sp on de nts ’ repr esentations concer

ning, a mong othe r thing s, the production of discove ry . Id. at 8. Th e me ssa g e imp art e d to c ouns e l and his su pe rv iso r s e e ms t o h ave be e n o nly pa rt ia lly
rec eived. On Ma

rch 9, 2009, Responde nts (throug h counsel’s supe rvisor) f iled the instant Motion for Reconsider ation seekingto allow Respondents’ counse l–the attorney in whom the Court ha s lo st a ll c on fi de nc e –to c on tin ue wi th h is p art ic ipatio n in thi s c a se . B e c a

us e Respondents’ Motion is based on a shoc kingly revisionist version of the e vents that transpire d, and bec ause it leaves the impression that the Court’s messa g e to counse l’s supervisor at the F e br ua ry 11 , 2 00 9 St atus He ari ngmay no t ha ve be e n f ull y un de rs too d, the Court

pr ov ide s a detailed de scription of what actually transpire d and a f

urther e x planation as to why it was appropr iate to exclude Respondents’ c ounsel from fur ther pa rticipation in this case.3 BACK GR OUND On Janu ary 7, 20 09 , th e Court

e nte re d a Sc he du lin g Or de r c ov e ri ng“ a ll m oti on s, fi lin g s, or other disc losures” ba sed in part on a J oint St atus Report and pr oposed sche dule submitted by the par ties. SeeScheduling Orde r at 1 (Jan. 7, 2009), Doc ket No. [433] . As part of the Scheduling Orde r, the Court adopte d the par ties’ proposal f

or Petitioners to file a Motion for Production of Complete Dec lassified F actua l Returns or Adequate Substit utes on or bef ore J anuar y 9, 2009. Id. The Court also re quired Petitioners to identify the portions of ea ch re turn that th e y sp e c if ic a lly we re mov ingto h ave de c la ssi fi e d, and un de r a he a din g “ Hi g h Pr ior ity I tems,” identify

the items they

considere d most im portant to their ability to present a

defe nse. Id. The pa rties’ Joint Status Report failed to propose a date f or Respondents’ O pposition, so t he Court se le c te d Jan

ua ry 23 , 2 00 9, wi tho ut t

he be ne fi t of

kn ow ingho w e xten siv e Pe tit ion e rs ’ de c la ssi fi c a tio n r e qu e sts mig ht b e . T he Sc he du lin g Or de r r e qu ir e d Re sp on de nts , b y that date , to file an O pposition t hat “include [d] the dec lassified re turn[s] and re levant attac hments as an exhibi t, and [] provide[d] a justification for e ach item that wa s identified in Petitioners’ Motion that Respondents have deter mined not to declassify .” Id. at 2. On J anuar

y 23, 2009, Respondents filed an O pposition t o Petitioners’ Motion and a Mo tio n f or Cla ri fi c atio n. Th e Court

str uc k th e Op po sit ion

a s n on -r e sp on siv e be c a

us e Respondents failed to include the dec lassified re turns as exhibit s and fa iled to provide a jus tif ic a tio n f or e a c h it e m th at w a s id e nti fi e d in Pe tit ion e rs ’ M oti on

that Re sp on de nts deter mined not to declassify
. SeeMin. Order dated Jan. 26, 2009. The Court also denie d wi tho ut p re

jud ic e Re sp on de nts ’ M oti on fo r C lari fi c a tio n b e c a

us e the mot ion

wa s a n im pr op e rl y de no min a te d r e qu e st f

or an e xten sio n o f t ime that f a ile d to inc lud e the “ de mon str a ble4

extraordinary

circ umstances” require d to obtain such extensions, as set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Orde r. Id. The Court neve rtheless a uthorized Respondents to file their Opposition and exhibits , as identified in the Court’s Sche duling Or der, no later than January 28, 2009. Respondents filed a Motion for an Extension on J anuar

y 28, 2009, apolog izi ng to the Court fo r “ fa ili ngto gra sp the imp or t of the Court ’s Janu ary

7, 20 09 Sc he du lin g Or de r a s it perta ined to a dec lassified ver sion of the fa ctual re turn.” Resp’ts’ [451] Mot . at 1-2. Re sp on de nts fu

rt he r e xpla ine d th at e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s w arr ante d a n e xten sio n unti l Fe bruar y 6, 2009, beca

use it was “impossible” f or Respondents to produc e the de classified returns by October 28, 2009. On J anuar

y 30, 2009, the Court g rante d Respondents’ re quest for an extension and adopted F ebrua ry 6, 2009 – the date Re spondents proposed – a s the date f or Respondents’ complianc e. SeeOr de r at 5 ( Jan. 30 , 2 00 9) . T he Court re pe a te d th a t “ Re sp on de nts [were r equire d to] file their Opposition to Petiti oners’ Motion for More Complete De classified Fa ctual Returns no late r than F ebrua ry 6, 2009” and w arne d counsel that their non- compliance “may result in sanctions, including possible exclusi on of alleg ations or documents g oing forwa rd.” Id. Incre dibly , Respondents’ counse l failed to file a n Opposition to P etitioners’ Motion. Rather, on F ebrua

ry 6, 2009, Respondents filed par tially decla ssified fac tual returns a nd sever al de c laratio ns e xpla ini ngwhy the y did no t de c la ssi fy

c e rt a in t y pe s o f i nf or matio n. Re sp on de nts
su bmi tte d s e ve ra l a dd iti on a l but untim e ly de c lara tio ns on F e br ua ry 10 , 2 00 9. B e c a

us e Respondents’ counse l failed to file a n Opposition, the Court had no document in its possession that linked the items that Respondents decide d not to declassify with Respondents’ justifications for not dec lassifying the m. I n other wor ds, Respondents appar ently believed that the CourtThe Court wa s also forc ed to sche dule y et another due date (the four

th) for submission 1 of Respondents’ O pposition. 5 would assume the bur den of r eviewingthe appr ox imately 1,300 pag es of doc uments that
c on sti tut e d th e de c la ssi fi e d f a c tua l r e tur

ns and a pp ly the jus tif ic a tio ns in t

he de c laratio ns a s it fo un d n e c e ssa

ry . E qu a lly

a s tr ou bli ng , th e a

bs e nc e of an O pp os iti on

me ant t hat Re sp on de nts failed to provide the Court with any leg al brief

ing to justify

their re dactions fr om the decla ssified fa c tua l r e tur

ns . The Court held a

closed-se ssion St atus Hea ringon Fe bruar

y 11, 2009. The Court beg an the hea ringby explaining that Respondents’ c ounsel had violated thre e Court Orde rs, and advised c ounsel’s super

visor that counsel ha d lost all credibility with the Court. The Court further advised c ounsel’s super

visor that Respondents should appoint differ ent counse l. At the end of the hear ing, how ever , counsel’s supe rvisor soug ht to just ify the non-c ompliance of Re sp on de nt’ s c ouns e l by

of fe ri ngthe fl ipp ant j us tif

ic a tio n th a t Re sp on de nts we re ve ry bu sy wi th other Gua ntanamo B ay

case s, and that counse l did not have time to file the Opposition or (appa rently ) an a ppropriate motion for an extension. The Court explained that counsel’s workload w as not an a cce ptable excuse for violating the O rder s of this Court and would not be tolerate d. The Court’s e x chang e with counse l’s supervisor at the end of the hear ing c onvinced the Court that it should order Respondents to appoint new c ounsel to this case (r ather than sug g est the same) beca

use counse l’s supervisor did not see m to gr asp the import of what had transpire d. 1 Th e Court

c on sid e re d o the r s anc tio ns but be lie ve d r e mov a l of c ouns e l w a s mo st appropr iate. In its J anuar y 30, 2009 Orde r, for

example, the Court warne d Respondents’ counse lOf c ourse, the Court c ould also have vie wed Petitioners’ Motion as c oncede d and 2 order ed the r elea se of c lassified information. The Court declined to issue this Orde r bec ause of its ob vio us natio na l se c ur ity imp lic atio ns . 6 that further

non-complianc e could r esult in sanctions such as e x clusion of evidenc e in future merits proce eding s. See Orde r at 5 (Jan. 30, 2009). The Court decided a g ainst issuing this ty pe of sanc tio n, ho we ve r, g ive n th e D. C. C ir c uit ’s we ll- e sta bli sh e d guid anc e that lo we r c ourt s sh ou ld first consider

sanctions ag ainst an attorne y prior to sanc tions ag ainst his client. See She a v. Donohoe Constr. Co., Inc. , 7 95 F .2 d 1 07 1, 10 76 -7 7 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 6) (“ [w]he n th e c lie nt’ s o nly fault is his poor choice of counse l . . . the District Court should first attempt to sanction the
a tto rn e y a t f a ult ,” wh ic h ma

y inc lud e “ re pla c ingthe e rr ant atto rn e y ” ); Jack son v. W ashington Monthly Co. , 569 F.2d 119, 123- 24 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (“ the intere sts of justice are better se rved by
an exerc ise of discre tion in favor of a ppropriate action ag ainst the lawyer a s the medium for vindication of the judicial proc ess and pr otection of the c itiz enry from future imposit ion”). T h e C o urt al s o co n s i d er edal l o wi n g R es p o n d en t s ’ c o un s el t o re m ai ni nth es e p ro ce ed i n gs but requiringthat all of his future r epre sentations be supported by appropr iate dec larations or
a ff ida vit s f ro m r e le va

nt e xec uti ve a g e nc ie s. Th e Court fo un d th is s anc tio n to be ina pp ro pr iate in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in Bo um e die nev . B us h , w hic h r e qu ir e s d ist ri c t c ourt s to pr oc e e d w ithGu anta

namo B ay

c a se s a s p ro mpt ly

a s p os sib le . 1 28 S. Ct . 2 22 9, 22 75 (“ the c os ts of dela y can no long er be borne by those who ar e held in custody . The de tainees in these case s
are entitled to a prompt habe as cor pus hear ing” ). The Court f ound that addingadditional require ments for Responde nts’ counsel to mee t would not comport with the Supreme Court’s Boumedie ne decision. 2 Sin c e the Court ’s F e br

ua ry 12 , 2 00 9 O rd e r r e mov ingRe sp on de nts ’ c ouns e l f ro m th e se7

proce eding s, the Court has found Responde nts to be more dilige nt and, wher e they have r equire d additional time to comply with the Court’s Orde rs, they have move d for a

ppropriate extensions of tim e . T he Court ’s Or de r t he re fo re a pp e ars to h ave ha d it s inte nd e d e ff e c t. DI SCU SSIO N On Marc h 9, 2009, counsel’s supe rvisor filed a Motion for Reconsider ation of the Court’s Fe bruar y 12, 2009 Orde r re quiringRespondents to appoint new c ounsel in his case. The Court discerns f our ar g uments in Respondents’ Motion. First, counsel’s nonc ompliance wa s based on
an “ ho ne st m isund e rs tand ing .” Re sp ’t s’ Mo t. at 1. Se c on d, Couns e l’ s n on -c omp lia nc e wa s a “proc edura l defe ct” a

nd that “the Gove rnment complied with the intent of the Court’ s Order s.” Id. Third, appointing new c ounsel will “make c ompliance with future deadlines diff icult.” Id. at 2. Four th, “the Attorne y

Gene ral ha s the . . . exclusive authority to desig nate whic h Depa rtment of Jus tice attorne y s will repre sent the United States in cour t.” Id. Th e Court

re je c ts e a c h o f t

he se
argume nts . A. Counsel’s non-com pliance was not the result of an “honest misunderstandi ng” Th e Court

ha s se ri ou s c on c e rn s a

bo ut c ouns e l’ s a

bil ity to r e a d a nd c omp re he nd

its Orde rs. The Court orde red Responde nts to file an Opposition to P etitioners’ Motion that “include[d] the declassified r eturn[s] and re levant attac hments as an e x hibit, and [ to] provide a justification for ea ch item that was ide ntified in Petiti oners’ Motion that Respondents have de te rm ine d n ot t o d e c la ssi fy .” Or de r at 2 ( Jan. 7, 20 09 ). Th e Court iss ue d O rd e rs wi th t

he same languag e on January

26, 2009, and January

30, 2009. N e v e rth e le s s , Re s p o n d e n ts ’ M o ti o nc o n ta in s th e f o ll o w in g s tate me n t: “ [t ]h e Co urt [ ] direc ted the Gove rnment to file a r esponse to the Petitioner’s [sic] mot ion by J anuar y 23, 2009,8

and to include with its response the decla ssified retur n and re levant attac hments and to provide justification [ sic] for any

continued cla ssification of any information that Petitioners had identified as ‘ high pr iority ’ items.” Resp’ts’ Mot. at 2. This stateme nt is false bec ause the Court
neve r direc ted Respondents to file an O pposition t hat conc erne d only “hig h priority ” items. Rather, the Court dire cted Pe tit ion e rs to i nc lud e a lis t of ite ms t hat th e y wa nte d Re sp on de nts to de c la ssi fy and to gro up tho se ite ms i nto “ high p ri or ity” and “ oth e r i te ms” so the Court wo uld have a fra mework to follow in the e vent it neede d to proce ed with Petitioners’ Motion in stage s. Counsel’s continued inability to come to terms with the Or ders of this Court i s a sig nificant
c on c e rn . In a

ny e ve nt, a s d isc us se d a

bo ve , Re sp on de nts fa ile d to fi le an O pp os iti on a s to the se “hig h priority ” items, or other wise. Next, R espondents indicate that they wer e conf

used by the Court’s Orde r, makingthe following statement in their Motion: “[t] he unce rtainty over the meaningof the Sche duling Orde r appe are d [] to be re flec ted in Petitioners’ Motion, which reque sted production of the decla ssified retur

ns by J anuar y 30 even thoug h the SchedulingOrde r had dire cted that the de c la ssi fi e d f

a c tua l r e tur

ns be su bmi tte d o n Jan

ua ry 23 .” Re sp ’t s’ Mo t. at 3. Th is “ c on fu sio n” is disinge nuous beca

use Petitioners’ Motion sought to have the fa ctual re turns decla ssified in t he ir
e nti re ty . In contra st, the Court ordere d Respondents to attach a s exhi bits to t heir Opposition the decla ssified fac tual returns which, if Respondents we re opposingthe dec lassification of the
r e tur n s i nth e i r e n t i r e ty , w o u l d

c o n t a i np o rt i o n s th a tR e s p o n d e n t s d e c i d e d n o tt o d e c l a s s i f

y . In this way , the Court could re view the items that Petitioners identified and Re spondents decide d not to declassify , and then r eview Re spondents’ leg al and f actua l rea sons for not dec lassifying such items.9

In any event, it is unclea

r how such f

eig ned conf

usion could have pe rsisted g iven that Re sp on de nts e xpre ssl y

a c kn ow le dg e d o n Jan

ua ry 28 , 2 00 9, that th e Court

ha d o rd e re d th e m to file an O pposition (or other re sponse) to Petitioners’ Motion: counsel for

responde nts apolog izes to t he Court for wholly misunderstandingand failingto gr asp the import of the Court’s January 7, 2009[] Scheduling Orde r . . . it is [ now] appare nt that the Court contemplated a decla ssified version of the complete f

actua l return f

iled on J anuar

y 23, 2009, in c on ne c tio n wi th a re sp on se to p e tit ion e r’

s m oti on for

a m or e c om

ple teun c las sif

ie d r e tur n . Resp’ts’ [451] Mot. for Extension at 1-2 (emphasis adde d). Ac cording ly , the conf usion under which Respondents a lleg edly labore d had cle arly

been dispe lled afte r January 28, 2009, afte r wh ic h Re sp on de nts ’ c ouns e l c on tin ue d to vio late the Court ’s Or de rs . Simi larl y , Re sp on de nts ’ M oti on c on ta ins the fo llo wi ngstate me nt: “ [b]e c a us e Respondents wer e complying w ith rather tha n opposing Petitioners’ Motion, Gove rnment
c ouns e l ne ve r c on te mpl ate d th e fi lin g of a me mor and

um i n o pp os iti on .” Re sp ’t s’ Mo t. at 4. This statement defie s logic . Respondents wer e not c omp lyingwi th P e tit ion e rs ’ M oti on be c a us e they wer e not a g re e ingto d e c la ssi fy

the fa c tua l r e tur

ns in t he ir e nti re ty – th e re lie f s ou g ht i n Petitioners’ Motion. This fact is manifest bec ause Responde nts eventually submitt ed to the Court various dec larations just ifying Re spondents’ dec ision not to declassify

various portions of the fa ctual re turns. I t is unclear how Respondents could have believed the y wer e not opposing Petitioners’ Motion when, at the same time, they wer e not af

fordingthem the re lief re quested a nd
wer e submitting var ious declar ations to the Court justi fying why they wer e opposingsuch re lief. At bo tto m, n oth ingin R e sp on de nts ’ e xpla natio n f or c ouns e l’ s n on -c omp lia

nc e su g g e sts that his conduct wa s the result of a misunderstanding . Counsel neede d to either c omply with the Orde rs of the Court or to move f or an a ppropriate extension of tim e to comply with the same.10

The Court wa s not require d to wait for a fourth Or der to be violated prior to takingaction. B. Counsel’s non-com pliance did not constitute a “procedural defec t” and Respondents did not “compl[y] with t he intent of the Court’s Orders.” Respondents argue that, despite the ir failure to submitan Opposition in violation of the Court’s Orde rs, “the Court ha s been pr ovided the information necessa ry to resolve a

ny dispute.” Resp’ts’ Mot. at 7. Fir st, the Court decides wha t it requires to re solve a dispute, not Respondents. Second, the f ailure of Respondents’ counse l to file an Opposition deprived the Court of the do c ume nt l ink ingthe ite ms that Re sp on de nts de c ide d n ot t o d e c la ssi fy wi th Respondents’ justifications for not de classify ing the m within a leg al fra mework. The decla ssified fac tual returns w ere approximately 1,300 pag es. It was the re sponsibili ty of Re sp on de nts ’ c ouns e l–n ot t he Court –to do the wo rk

re qu ir e d to link th e ite ms R e sp on de nts decide d not to declassify

with Respondents’ justifications for the same, and to incor porate such justifications within a leg al fra mework. Respondents’ appa

rent fa ilure to compre hend what was expected is re flec ted in the following statement conta ined in their Motion: “[i ]f Petit ioners believe any of the [Respondents’] reda ctions are improper, they can se ek re lief fr om the Court and the United States c an file a ny
nece ssary responsive br ief.” Resp’ts’ Mot. at 7. What Respondents fail to understand is that Petitioners had alre ady

filed such a

motion on J anuar

y 9, 2009, ref

lectingtheir belief

that all of Respondents’ re dactions we re imprope r. Thus, Respondents’ O pposition was to be filed in response to a motion for re lief, not in a nti c ipa tio n o

f one. C. Appointing new counsel will not “make c ompliance with future deadlines dif fic ult ” The Court summarily

reje cts Respondents’ a

rgument that appointment of newcounsel11

will make compliance with future de adlines diffic ult. Respondents’ counsel wa s unable to mee t the ob lig a tio ns imp os e d b y the Court ’s Or de rs pr ior

to h is r e mov a l, s o n e w c ouns e l c an o nly improve Respondents’ r ecor d of complianc e to date. A dditionally , the Court has found Respondents to have be en more diligent since issuing its removal Or der, a nd the Court anticipates the same a s these proc eeding s move forw ard. D. TheAt tor

ne yGe ne ra l’

s a uth or ity

to d esig na tec ou ns e l do es n ot o v e rri dethi s Cou rt’ s A uth or ity

to S an c tio n R esp on de nts Re sp on de nts ’ M oti on

a c kn ow le dg e s th a t “ thi s Co ur t ha s inhe re nt a

uth or ity ne c e ssa ry to
ma int a in c on tr ol o ve r p ro c e e din g s c on du c te d b e fo re it a nd to d isc ipl ine c on du c t c omm itt e d in its prese nce.” Resp’ts’ Mot. at 6 (c iting L ocal Civil Rule 83.13(b)). Responde nts argue, howe ver, that su c h p ow e r s ho uld

be e xer c ise d w ithc a

uti on , p ro vid e the of

fe nd inga tto rn e y

an o pp or tun ity to be hea rd, and be weig hed ag ainst the Attorney Gene ral’s r ight to desig nate the c ounsel who repr esents the United States in a g iven suit. Id. at 6-8. The se ar g uments are not persuasive . As discussed above , the Court did not sanction Respondents until after the thi rd vio latio n o f i ts Or de rs and

a ft e r c on sid e ri nga lte rn ativ e sa nc tio ns . T he Court

a lso pr ov ide d Re sp on de nts ’
c ouns e l w ithan o pp or

tun ity to c or re c t hi s c on du c t by

sp e c if ic a lly wa rn ingthat sa

nc tio ns wo uld be imposed for

further violations, seeOrde r at 5 (Jan. 30, 2009), and did not impose sanc tions until after c ounsel and his supervisor ha d the opportunity to “explain” the re asons for c ounsel’s non-complianc e at the F ebrua ry 11, 2009 Status Hearing . Finally , althoug h the Attorney Gene ral ha s th e ri g ht t o d e signate its re pr e se ntativ e in a g ive n h e ari ng , th a t a

uth or ity do e s n ot t

rump t his Court ’s a bil ity to m a int a in c on tr ol o ve r i ts o wn pr oc e e din g s, inc lud ingthe e nf or c e me nt o f i ts Orde rs throug h sanctions. As the D.C. Circuit re cently explained, “[d] istrict judge s must haveRespondents’ Motion includes a summary of counse l’s cre dentials and indicates that he 3 ha s h a d a dis tin g uis he d le g a l c are e r. Th e Court no te s th a t it s O rd e r r e mov inghim fr om t he se pr oc e e din g s is no t inte nd e d to imp ug n h is a bil iti e s, but r a the r, is a

re su lt o f h is c on du c t in

thi s case , befor e this Court, that was not appropr iate and that fell below that whic h is ex pecte d from Go ve rnme nt c ouns e l. 12 authority to manag e their doc kets” whic h includes “whether and how to enf

orce the dea dlines they impose.” In re FannieMae Se curities Liti g. , 5 52 F .3 d 8 14 , 8 22 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 9) . In th is Court ’s e sti matio n, or de ri ngRe sp on de nts to a pp oint ne w c ouns e l w a s th e mos t a pp ro pr iate sanction for

the re peate d violation of the Court’s Orde rs. Nothing in Respondents’ Motion for Re c on sid e ratio n p e rs ua de s th e Court oth e rw ise . T he Court

sh a ll the re fo re de ny

Re sp on de nts ’ Motion. 3 Acc ording ly , it is, t his 6th day of April, 2009, her eby OR DE RE D that Respondents’ [500] Motion for Reconsider ation is DENI ED. SO ORDERED. Date: Apr il 6, 2009 / s / CO LLEEN K OLLA R- K OTEL LY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge