Case: 15-2356
Document: 00117008625
Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page 1/3
Entry ID: 6005214
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Sai Petitioner Civil Action No.: 152356
v. Peter Neffenger Respondent
Response to TSA's letter re. evidence preservation order1 Yesterday, Respondent filed a letter asking this Court to expedite its ruling on TSA's motion for reconsideration of this Court's preservation order — namely, the request for administrative stay. Respondent has repeatedly refused to lessen its own purported burden from compliance with this Court's order. The letter has not a single indication to this Court of any action, burdensome or otherwise, that has been taken to comply with the order.2 Instead, it implies TSA is presently in contempt of court, granting itself the requested stay and, so far, refusing to carry out the order.3 Petitioner's motion was premised on TSA's untrustworthiness due to prior spoliation and its unwillingness to explicitly stipulate to preserve records from SEA. In that motion, Petitioner explicitly accused TSA of spoliation, with evidence. Despite many opportunities to deny the allegation in court (not merely "over email") — response and possible surreply to preservation
Before filing this response, Petitioner attempted, yet again, to confer to narrow the scope of the pending dispute, expedite portions of TSA's motion, etc. Counsel refused. See attached emails. 1
Note the hypothetical language of the letter, e.g. "compliance would be extremely burdensome". 2
Petitioner hereby stipulates consent to leave for Respondent to file a response to this allegation — on condition that it includes at least one sentence explicitly stating whether or not TSA is currently complying with the order (& what actions taken), and consent for Petitioner to respond. 3
Case: 15-2356
Document: 00117008625
Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page 2/3
Entry ID: 6005214
motion; motion for reconsideration; response and possible surreply to motion to strike; and this newest letter — Respondent has given not a single word actually denying the accusation.4 Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Court either consider the spoliation admitted (or, at least, subject to an adverse inference or presumption), or order Respondent to clearly and directly address the allegation with an explicit admission or denial and supporting evidence. Petitioner agrees with Respondent in one respect: it is in both parties' interest to have the order clarified as soon as possible. Petitioner requested interim counsel to argue the motion for that reason. Respondent's letter falsely claims that the motion is for merely "interim" relief. In fact, it is fundamentally an attack on Petitioner's standing.5 Petitioner strongly objects to any stay of the order, and to any attempt to force Petitioner to brief the issue of standing6 without the benefit of counsel for whose appointment this case is presently in abeyance. If TSA wants merely to reduce its burden of complying with this Court's order, it remains welcome to accept Petitioner's offer of reasonable stipulations on thee matter. Respectfully submitted, Sai, petitioner pro se
[email protected] +1 510 394 4724 phone / +1 206 203 2827 fax 500 Westover Dr. #4514, Sanford, NC 273308941 Petitioner hereby stipulates consent to leave for Respondent to file a response to Petitioner's allegation of spoliation — on condition that it includes at least one sentence explicitly admitting or denying the spoliation, and consent for Petitioner to respond. 4
Petitioner notes that Respondent remains in willful violation of this Court's order, and plain language of statute, to file the record. See Nov. 12, 2015 order ("The administrative record … must be filed by December 22, 2015.") and crossmotions of Dec. 17, 2015 and Dec. 18, 2015. 5
Petitioner notes that, despite nothing stopping TSA from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or standing — and claimed intent to do so six months ago, see e.g. Dec. 17, 2015 p. 3 and Dec. 31, 2015 p. 3 — TSA still has not filed any formal challenge to Petitioner's standing. 6
Case: 15-2356
Document: 00117008625
Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page 3/3
Entry ID: 6005214
Certificate of service I hereby certify that today, June 2, 2016, I filed this paper on Respondent by CM/ECF.
