Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. v. DynCorp International LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

June 16, 2016

NORHTROP GRUMMAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JAMES C. CACHERIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”, or “Northrop Grumman”) Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Remand Order Pending Appeal (“Motion to Stay Pending Appeal”) [Dkt. 73], and Motion for Leave to Take Certain Depositions (“Motion to Depose”) [Dkt. 89]. Defendant DynCorp International, LLC (“Defendant” or “DynCorp”) has also filed an Emergency Motion for Clarification of District Court Jurisdiction Over Discovery (“Motion to Clarify Discovery”) [Dkt. 81]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and clarifies that no discovery should proceed under the jurisdiction of this Court during the pendency of Plaintiff’s appeal.

         I. Background

         The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts of the case as described in the two previous memorandum opinions in this matter. (See Mem. Op. of June 6, 2016 [Dkt. 68], 1-8; Mem. Op. of June 7, 2016 [Dkt. 69], 2.) Accordingly, only those facts directly relevant to the motions at hand are recounted here. On June 2, 2016, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Remand and ordered that this case be remanded back to Circuit Court for Fairfax County. (Order of June 2, 2016 (“Remand Order”) [Dkt. 58].) Before the Clerk of Court could execute the Remand Order, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Remand seeking an automatic 14-day stay of execution on the Court’s Remand Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a). The Court granted that motion and entered an order confirming a 14-day automatic stay on the execution of its Remand Order on June 7, 2016. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay Pending Appeal and filed a separate motion to set an expedited briefing schedule on the motion to stay. On June 9, 2016, the Court entered an order setting an accelerated briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. On June 14, 2016, Defendant filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal [Dkt. 87]. Plaintiff filed its Reply Brief [Dkt. 92] on June 15, 2016. Oral argument was heard on June 16, 2016, and the motion is now ripe for decision.

         Meanwhile, on June 10, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Clarify Discovery. In that motion, Defendant asks the Court to clarify that discovery should not proceed in federal court until Plaintiff’s appeal of the Remand Order is resolved. Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Discovery was motivated by Plaintiff’s declared interest in deposing five third party, U.S. Army witnesses who worked in some way on the underlying contract between Northrop Grumman and the Government (collectively, the “Army Witnesses”). (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Clarify Discovery [Dkt. 82], 3.) Defendant noticed the Motion to Clarify Discovery for a hearing on June 16, 2016, the same day the Court was scheduled to hear Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Plaintiff filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Discovery [Dkt. 90] on June 15, 2016. Along with its Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Depose. In its Motion to Depose, Plaintiff asks the court to order the deposition of the Army Witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(b). Defendant did not file any written opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose, but the Motion to Depose was addressed at oral argument on June 16, 2016, and Defendant’s grounds for opposition were substantially set forth in its Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Clarify Discovery. Accordingly, these discovery related motions are now ripe for decision as well.

         II. Legal Standard

         A. Stay Pending Appeal

         “A stay is considered ‘extraordinary relief’ for which the moving party bears a ‘heavy burden.’” Larios v. Cox, 305 F.Supp.2d 1335, 1336 (N.D.Ga. 2004)(quoting Winston-Salem/Forsyth Cty. Bd. Of Educ. v. Scott, 404 U.S. 1221, 1231 (1971)). When evaluating a motion to stay pending appeal, courts consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). However, “[s]ince the traditional stay factors contemplated individualized judgments in each case, the formula cannot be reduced to a set of rigid rules.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777 (1987). The Court will address each of the aforementioned four factors in turn.

         B. Depositions Pending Appeal of Remand

         Upon removal from state court, “[a]ll injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1450. However, the filing of a notice of appeal “is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(b)(1) provides that “[t]he court where a judgment has been rendered may, if an appeal has been taken or may still be taken, permit a party to depose witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in that court.” The district court can order a deposition “[i]f the court finds that perpetuating the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(b)(3).

         III. Analysis

         A. Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

         The Court will address each of the aforementioned four factors described in Nken v. Holder in turn.

         1. Likelihood of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.