Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

American Small Business League v. United States Department of Defense

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 24, 2019

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Intervenor Plaintiff.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

          WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, a third-party whose documents are at issue moves to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a) and Rule 24(b). To the extent stated below, the motion is Granted.

         STATEMENT

         The facts of this action are discussed in detail in the order granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 58). In brief, plaintiff American Small Business League (“ASBL”) is an organization that promotes the interests of small businesses (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4).

         This action is related to a prior FOIA case, American Small Business League v. Department of Defense, No. C 14-02166 WHA (“ASBL I”). There, in August 2013, the same plaintiff requested Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation's 2013 Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the Department of Defense pursuant to FOIA. The agency initially denied plaintiff's request on the basis that the requested document contained confidential commercial information and thus fell under FOIA's exemption under Section 552(b)(4). In March 2018, after years of litigation and a trip to our court of appeals, the government released the document over Sikorsky's objections (with the exception of limited redactions for private personal information under Section 552(b)(6)) (Dkt. No. 58 at 2).

         As relevant to the instant motion, plaintiff now seeks all documents transmitted during ASBL I between the Department of Defense or defendant Department of Justice and Lockheed Martin Corporation (including Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed) regarding the 2013 FOIA request, ASBL, Lloyd Chapman, the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program, and the Mentor-Protégé program (Dkt. No. 47 at 7).

         Since plaintiff's filing of the instant action in March 2018, the government released responsive documents, subject to redactions (Dkt. No. 29 ¶¶ 2-4). In late 2018, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the government's redactions (Dkt. Nos. 44, 47). Of particular interest to Lockheed Martin, the court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to Exemption 4 (Dkt. No. 58 at 11).

         On April 9, 2019, a prior order approved the parties' stipulated schedule regarding pretrial and trial dates. The schedule required the parties to complete expert discovery by October 31, 2019. Regarding materials withheld pursuant to Exemption 4, a subsequent order required the parties to serve lists of anticipated expert witnesses by July 15, 2019 (Dkt. No. 69 at 2).

         Now, third-party Lockheed Martin seeks to intervene both as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) and permissively under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) on the grounds that Lockheed Martin has an interest in shielding its confidential information from disclosure, the disposition of this case may substantially impair or impede this interest, and the government no longer adequately represents Lockheed Martin's interests. This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

         ANALYSIS

         To intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) an applicant must claim “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, ” the protection of which may, as a practical matter, be impaired or impeded by the action if the applicant is not allowed to participate in the litigation. An applicant seeking to intervene as of right must demonstrate that:

(1) it has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant's interest.

United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Rule 24(a) is broadly construed in favor of applicants ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.