U.S. ex rel. King v. DSE, Inc.
U.S. ex rel. King v. DSE, Inc.
2013 WL 608541 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
February 19, 2013
Merryday, Steven D., United States District Judge
Summary
The court did not address any ESI and did not make any rulings regarding it. The court granted the motion for sanctions and dismissed the action with prejudice as to the Relator and without prejudice as to the United States. The court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Additional Decisions
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John D. KING, Plaintiff,
v.
DSE, INC., et al., Defendants
v.
DSE, INC., et al., Defendants
No. 8:08–CV–2416–T–23EAJ
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
February 19, 2013
Counsel
Michael Stefen Tuma, Michael S. Tuma, P.A., Deland, FL, Charles T. Harden, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Casey Reeder Lennox, Lennox Law, P.A., David Thomas Knight, William Cooper Guerrant, Jr., Hill Ward Henderson, PA, Charles Allen Carlson, Barnett, Bolt, Kirkwood, Long & McBride, Mark Kiser, Trenam Kemker, Marcos E. Hasbun, Morris Weinberg, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Tampa, FL, John F. Libby, Michael S. Bhargava, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Andrew D. Kaplan, Andy Liu, Frederick W. Claybrook, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Kimo S. Peluso, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Merryday, Steven D., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 DSE, Inc., and DSE Fuzing, LLC, move (Doc. 232) under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for sanctions including dismissal of the Relator's claims with prejudice. Kaman Precision Products Inc., JKS Industries, Inc., and GTI Systems, Inc., join the motion. (Docs. 240, 241, and 242) The United States, which declined to intervene (Doc. 17), asks that, “in the event the Court dismisses the Relator's Amended Complaint ... the Court specify that any such dismissal is without prejudice as to the United States.” (Doc. 247) The Relator opposes imposition of a sanction and dismissal. (Doc. 249, 253, 257, and 259)
The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (Doc. 243) under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Judge Jenkins scheduled a hearing and ordered the parties to confer regarding exhibits and witness lists. (Doc. 251) The hearing occurred on October 24, 2012. (Doc. 265)
As directed by Magistrate Judge Jenkins, the defendants filed a summary argument brief (Doc. 270) and the Relator filed a summary argument brief (Doc. 271). On January 17, 2013, Magistrate Judge Jenkins issued a report and recommendation. (Doc. 274). On January 31, 2013, the Relator filed objections (Doc. 275) to the report and recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Relator's objections (Doc. 275) are OVERRULED, and the report and recommendation (Doc. 274) is ADOPTED. The motion (Doc. 232) for sanctions is GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Relator and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the United States. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
ORDERED.