- 67 -
ordered the parties to file status reports regarding subsequent
disposition of the cases. The responses displayed various
disagreements between respondent and petitioners concerning not
only the scope of the remedy, but the manner of its
implementation. For example, the status report of petitioners’
counsel Henry Binder states: “Respondent does not come to this
Court’s fashioning of the equitable remedy ordered by the Ninth
Circuit with clean hands and, therefore, has no standing to argue
the terms or scope of that remedy.”31 The Court conducted status
conferences in Houston, Texas, in August 2003 and in Los Angeles,
California, in September 2003 to address petitioners’ attempts to
settle the cases. The conferences resulted in no settlement.
The parties then engaged in protracted motions practice
regarding assertions of privilege by respondent as to some
matters sought in discovery and regarding the award of attorney’s
fees claimed by counsel for petitioners.
On April 5, 2004, petitioners filed motions for an
evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, at the behest of the parties,
the Court directed further discovery and conducted further
hearings. The first hearing took place at Las Vegas, Nevada, in
31Having considered certain issues raised in the status
reports, this Court issued an order dated June 12, 2003,
indicating it was “not inclined to consider attempts to
disqualify counsel” in any of the cases at issue. We
additionally stated: “This Court is not inclined to seek
appointment of counsel from the United States Department of
Justice to represent respondent in these cases”.
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011