Remember the Friday, December 18 lawsuit that fell out of the datagate incident?
The Bernie 2016 campaign filed suit in Federal Court alleging that the DNC was improperly withholding contracted data services. On the eve of a late night conference call between the parties and the assigned judge, agreement was reached that (1) the DNC would resume campaign access to all voter data services and (2) various follow up audits would be performed to determine the extent and nature of any unlicensed access to voter data. Earlier in the week there had been reports of access by the campaign to unlicensed data, and some Bernie staffers were let go in connection. [Update:] The campaign also provided the DNC with explanations about that incident and assurances.
After the late Friday night agreement and an apology during the following debate, many observers thought the datagate issue and lawsuit would go completely away. But we learned the following Monday, Dec 21, that Bernie 2016 instead kept the case alive. The campaign had been holding back on normal lawsuit opening procedures, and on Jan 11, the Judge ordered the campaign either to dismiss its complaint or explain why it had not yet provided the DNC with formal service of process. On Jan 15, the campaign explained in a formal letter that it was still in discussions with the DNC.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of January 11, 2016, Plaintiff, Bernie 2016, Inc., hereby submits this Status Report. The parties are engaged in discussions and are continuing in their cooperative efforts to resolve the pending litigation. In light of these efforts, Plaintiff does not intend to serve Defendant at this time. However, if the parties are unable to resolve this dispute, Plaintiff reserves the right to serve Defendant before the expiration of the time limit for service set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Just today, the Judge entered a further order in the docket requiring Bernie 2016 to show cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed. I copied the full docket below, and the last entry is from today:
… it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before 3/24/16, why the claims against Defendant should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service. Plaintiff's failure to effectuate service or to satisfactorily respond to the present order by 3/24/16, may result in the dismissal of this action, without further notice.
The lawsuit really should just have been voluntarily dismissed back in December when discussions with the DNC found agreement about restoring data access. [Update: Or should never have been filed.] Now the campaign will either have to sort out how to redraft its mooted complaint or finally withdraw the action.
Date Filed |
# |
Docket Text |
12/18/2015 |
1 |
COMPLAINT against DNC SERVICES CORPORATION ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4355281) filed by BERNIE 2016, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreement, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons, # 4 Declaration)(Lambiotte, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
|
12/18/2015 |
|
Case Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (md) (Entered: 12/18/2015) |
12/21/2015 |
3 |
SUMMONS Issued Electronically as to DNC SERVICES CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Consent) (md) (Entered: 12/21/2015) |
01/11/2016 |
|
MINUTE ORDER: Not later than 1/15/16 Plaintiff shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal or a status report indicating whether Plaintiff has or intends to effectuate service of process. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/11/15. (DJS) (Entered: 01/11/2016) |
01/15/2016 |
|
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/15/2016 (zsm) (Entered: 01/15/2016) |
01/15/2016 |
4 |
STATUS REPORT by BERNIE 2016, INC.. (Griffin, Sean) (Entered: 01/15/2016) |
03/21/2016 |
|
MINUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff filed this action on 12/18/15 and the Clerk of the Court issued a summons on 12/21/15. It appears from the record that Plaintiff, has yet to effectuate service on the Defendant. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before 3/24/16, why the claims against Defendant should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service. Plaintiff's failure to effectuate service or to satisfactorily respond to the present order by 3/24/16, may result in the dismissal of this action, without further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Show Cause Response due by 3/24/2016. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 3/21/16. (DJS) (Entered: 03/21/2016) |