Ruling on Discovery Disputes in “SolarCity” Cash Grant Litigation

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Contact

On August 29, 2014, Judge Bruggink heard oral argument and ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents and information requested from the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) regarding plaintiffs’ challenge to Treasury’s calculation of Section 1603 cash grant awards for solar projects. Plaintiffs, special-purpose entities that invested in cash-grant-eligible solar projects sponsored by SolarCity, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on February 22, 2013, challenging adjustments made by Treasury that resulted in reduced cash grant awards.

Background and early developments in the case are covered in blog posts of May 21, June 2, July 9, August 14 and September 20, the most recent of which concerns Judge Bruggink’s denial of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the complaint. Since that time, discovery disputes have slowed the progress of the litigation, leading plaintiffs to file the motion to compel at issue in the hearing held last Friday.

The thrust of the parties’ dispute is whether certain information relating to other Section 1603 applicants and internal Treasury policies/guidelines is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims and is discoverable. At the hearing, the DOJ, arguing on behalf of Treasury, asserted that plaintiffs’ requests were overly broad and irrelevant, insofar as they sought information concerning approaches taken by Treasury with respect to other, unrelated applicants and the development of Treasury’s general screening policies and benchmarks used in evaluating and adjusting applications. While Judge Bruggink mainly agreed with the DOJ’s arguments, he also recognized the potential relevance of such information to how Treasury evaluated and adjusted plaintiffs’ cash grant awards, noting that even the DOJ’s explanation of Treasury’s approach to Section 1603 adjustments suggested a certain amount of imprecision in the process.

Accordingly, Judge Bruggink generally limited plaintiffs’ discovery requests to information and documents concerning what Treasury had done with respect to their applications, although he also ruled currently discoverable other applications used by Treasury as a basis of comparison to adjust plaintiffs’ awards and, with respect to Treasury benchmarks that were higher than the amounts claimed by plaintiffs, information concerning how such benchmarks were derived. He deferred making a final ruling on the other information and documents sought by plaintiffs until after this material had been produced and reviewed.

Fact discovery is currently scheduled to conclude by November 19, 2014 (which will be followed by expert reports and discovery), although Judge Bruggink expressed understandable doubt during the August 29 hearing that such discovery would indeed be complete by this date.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Contact
more
less

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.