Just two weeks before oral argument, Earle Partington’s counsel have filed this perplexing motion asking the D.C. Circuit to order the Navy defendants to answer allegations from his complaint.
The motion recycles previously made arguments and takes a particularly aggressive (and, in my view, unfortunate) stance toward opposing counsel. For example, the motion asserts, “Since Partington filed this action in the district court, the Navy defendants and government counsel have responded with a barrage of factual misrepresentations and bad faith legal arguments to support the Navy defendants’ bogus action against him.” Motion at 11-12. The motion suggests, “This court should issue an order to show cause to the Navy defendants and government counsel as to why they should not be sanctioned for their individual and collective misconduct.” Id. at 12. Later, the motion argues that “the Navy defendants have no compunction about outright factual misrepresentations.” Id. at 15. The motion concludes:
The point Partington is seeking to make here is that the Navy defendants have been less than truthful with this court. By forcing them to answer the relevant paragraphs of the complaint at this time, an injustice to Partington will be avoided and the sanctionable conduct of these appellees and government counsel will be exposed. If this case is remanded as it must be, these defendants will have to answer the complaint so there is no prejudice in requiring an answer now. Further, an answer now will avoid a potential fraud upon the court.
Id. at 19-20.
I find it unlikely that the D.C. Circuit will find such ad hominem attacks to be persuasive.