National Law Center on Homelessness v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
842 F. Supp. 2d 127
D.D.C.2012Background
- This is an old case inherited from Judge Gasch, involving McKinney Homeless Assistance Act enforcement.
- Plaintiffs sued federal agencies for failure to comply with the 1988–1993 injunction enforcing property canvassing and outreach for homeless facilities.
- In 2011 defendants moved to vacate the 1993 Order; plaintiffs sought discovery to oppose the motion.
- The court held discovery is appropriate to develop facts for ruling on the vacatur motion, and that no final agency action exists here for conventional APA review.
- The court limited discovery to the issues relevant to the motion to vacate and denied a scheduling order as moot.
- The final orders grant partial discovery, deny the protective order, and require a limited scheduling plan for discovery.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery in agency action vs. inaction | Plaintiffs need discovery to oppose vacating the 1993 Order | Discovery not appropriate absent bad faith and no final agency action | Discovery allowed to develop facts for vacatur motion |
| Standard and burden for vacating the injunction | Defendants must show changed circumstances with factual support | Burden lies with defendants; self-serving assertions insufficient | Burden shown; discovery permitted to test facts |
| Effect of discovery on scheduling order and mootness | Scheduling order required to govern discovery | Scheduling order moot after denial of motion for scheduling order | Scheduling order denied as moot; parties to propose limited discovery schedule within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguayo v. Harvey, 476 F.3d 971 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (limits on review; record considerations in agency action vs. inaction)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (judicial review under APA; final agency action necessary)
- Amer. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (agency findings and record; extent of review)
- Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 173 F.3d 438 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (review of agency action; record and law governing review)
- Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2000) (no final action for record; discovery relevance in inaction cases)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent powers of courts to ensure compliance; broad equity powers)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (court’s equitable power; factual inquiries in modification of injunctions)
- Petties ex. rel. Martin v. District of Columbia, 662 F.3d 564 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b)(5) requires changed-circumstances showing; need for factual findings)
- N.L.R.B. v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1960) (discovery usefulness in determining facts)