M.K. v. Tenant

Facts

On January 13, 1999, Ps filed a complaint against Ds. On April 12, 1999, Ps filed an amended complaint adding 5 more plaintiffs. Some plaintiffs were allowed voluntarily dismiss. On November 30, 2001, Ps filed a proposed second amended complaint adding nine new plaintiffs. Ps claim that Ds' acts and omissions in denying Ps access to effective assistance of counsel violate Ps' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Privacy Act, and Title VII. 2d Am. Compl. PP 2-5, 444. Ps allege that Ds' September 4, 1998 notice entitled 'Access to Agency Facilities, Information, and Personnel by Private Attorneys and Other Personal Representatives' deprives Ps' counsel access to 'official information' pertaining to the plaintiffs' employment matters. This has resulted in a denial of Ps' access to CIA documents, policies, procedures, and regulations, thereby preventing counsel from effectively advising the Ps of their rights. On March 24, 1999, Ds filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6). It was granted in part and denied in part. Ds filed a 'motion for reconsideration' of that ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), seeking to dismiss Ps' remaining due process and Privacy Act claims. On November 30, 2001, Ps filed a motion for leave to file the second amended complaint along with the proposed second amended complaint. The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and supplemental order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b). On January 2, 2002, Ds filed their instant motion to sever the claims of the six existing plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. On March 6, 2002, Ps filed a certificate of notification informing the CIA and the court of the 30 Doe defendants' identities.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.