Bench Memos

Moonlight Fire “Fraud on the Court” Briefing Complete

A couple weeks ago, the defendants in the federal Moonlight Fire litigation filed their reply brief, completing scheduled briefing on whether the government committed a fraud on the court by failing to disclose significant contrary information to the defendants in the case before entry of a settlement agreement. Oral argument on the issue is scheduled for April 13, 2015.

As I’ve noted before, the Moonlight Fire litigation centers around liability for a 2007 forest fire in California. The litigation heated up after a state trial court sanctioned the state government last year for numerous discovery abuses and failure to disclose significant pertinent information. As punishment, the state trial court dismissed the case and ordered the state government to reimburse the defendants for tens of millions of dollars in legal fees. 

After the state court sanctioned the state government, the defendants – who had settled a federal suit rather than face literally a billion dollars in federal liability – sought to set aside the settlement, since they had only learned of significant exculpatory information after agreeing to the government’s terms. Two federal attorneys who had previously worked on the government’s case signed declarations for the defendants about government-side discovery shenanigans, and alleging that the government was more interested in suing a defendant with deep pockets than it was concerned about truth and justice.

The 130-page reply brief minces no words (citation omitted):

The government has constructed the perfect companion piece to the rest of its misconduct in the Moonlight Fire matter. During the investigation of this fire, the government found what it wanted to find and either covered up or destroyed contrary or harmful evidence. During the drafting of its opposition to Defendants’ briefing, the government collected a pile of unanalyzed legal fragments and pieced them together to create a version of reality that has little relationship to the truth. As was the case with the investigation and prosecution of this matter, the government has again left behind and failed to reveal critical elements of what this Court deserved – in this instance, a thoughtful a discussion of what actually constitutes fraud on the court. As Judge Nichols found after his thorough review of the jointly prosecuted state actions, this case has long been (and today remains), an effort to “steamroll the truth.” The government has now turned that effort on the law itself.

Reading the defendants’ brief is a little bit like watching a judo master taking his opponent’s most forceful blows and skillfully turning them against him. In addition to mocking the government for responding to the court’s demand for “focused” briefing “limited to” the applicable legal standards by filing 3,500 pages of factual appendices and transcripts, the defendants also highlight the government’s casual dismissals of the trial court judge’s integrity. It’s excellent advocacy, and well worth your time.  

Jonathan Keim — Jonathan Keim is Counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network. A native of Peoria, Illinois, he is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and Princeton University, an experienced litigator, and ...

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The Second(-Class) Amendment

Editor’s Note: The following is the fourth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips will lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry ... Read More

The Brexit Crisis

After what seem like years of a phony war, British and European Union negotiators finally agreed on the terms of Britain’s departure from the EU earlier this week, and Theresa May announced it in the House of Commons. The deal covers more than 500 pages of legal and bureaucratic prose, and few but the ... Read More

Friends of Elmer

Do you know what scares an American outdoorsman more than a grizzly bear? Twitter. In the late summer and early autumn, the hunting world had its eyes on the courts: The Trump administration had issued new guidance that would permit the hunting of brown bears (popularly known as grizzly bears), including in ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Basta La Vista, Baby

Dear Reader (And especially Martha McSally’s dog), As I often note, I increasingly tend to see the political scene as a scripted reality show in which the writers don’t flesh out the dialogue so much as move characters into weird, wacky, confrontational, or embarrassing positions. It’s a lot like The ... Read More