Case
3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30
Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 15
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
HOLLY A. VANCE
Assistant United States Attorney
100 West Liberty Street, Suite 600
Reno, Nevada 89501
Tel: (775) 784-5438
Fax: (775) 784-5181
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JED
MARGOLIN,
)
Case No. 3:09-CV-00421-LRH-VPC
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
ANSWER TO SECOND
v.
)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND )
SPACE ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
COMES NOW Defendant NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION (“NASA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and
answers the Second Amended Complaint as follows:
1. This
paragraph contains Plaintiff's characterization of this lawsuit — not
allegations of fact — and thus no response is required. To the extent a
response is required, Defendant admits that this matter purports to be
an action for injunctive and other relief brought pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Defendant denies the remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 15
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
This paragraph contains Plaintiff's conclusions of
law regarding the scope and extent of the Court's jurisdiction, to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,
Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction over this action.
3.
This paragraph contains Plaintiff's conclusions of
law regarding the appropriate venue for this action, to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that venue is proper in this Court.
Parties
4.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff lives at 1981 Empire
Rd., VC Highlands, Nevada. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in this paragraph and, on that basis, denies
those allegations.
5. Defendant admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.
Statement of Facts – Background
6.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in the
first sentence of this paragraph. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge
and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in the second and third sentences of this paragraph and, on
that basis, denies those allegations. The allegations contained in
the fourth and fifth sentences of this paragraph purport to
characterize documents attached to Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint. Those documents speak for themselves and contain the
best evidence of their contents and thus no response is required.
7.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff contacted NASA Langley Research Center
in May 2003. Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
8.
Defendant admits that patent counsel at NASA Langley Research Center
ordered the United States Patent and Trademark Office prosecution
histories for U.S. Patent Nos. 5,566,073 and 5,904,724. Defendant
admits that the prosecution histories were ordered May 16,
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 15
2003.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this
paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
9.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff was referred to the NASA Headquarters
Office of General Counsel in June 2003 and spoke to Alan Kennedy.
Defendant admits that Mr. Kennedy is no longer employed with NASA.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this
paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
10.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff submitted information supporting an
administrative claim for patent infringement to the NASA Headquarters
Office of General Counsel in a letter dated June 17, 2003. The
remaining allegations contained in the first sentence of this paragraph
purport to characterize the contents of that letter. That letter speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents and thus no
response is required. Defendant lacks knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in this paragraph and, on that basis, denies
those allegations.
11.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff did
not receive a determination on his administrative claim for patent
infringement by December 2003. Defendant lacks knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations regarding Mr. Kennedy’s purported comments to Plaintiff as
set forth in sections a. through e. of this paragraph and, on that
basis, denies those allegations. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sent a
letter dated January 8, 2004 addressed to Mr. Kennedy. The allegations
contained in this paragraph purport to characterize the contents of
that letter. That letter speaks for itself and contains the
best evidence of its contents and thus no response is required.
Defendant admits that no response to Plaintiff's January, 8, 2004
letter was sent and thus Plaintiff received no response thereto.
12.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and, on
that basis, denies those allegations. Defendant admits that it has no
record that Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding the status of
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 15
his
administrative claim for patent infringement after January 8, 2004.
Defendant admits that it has no record of any contact by Plaintiff
between January 8, 2004 and June 28, 2008 — the date Plaintiff filed
his FOIA request.
13. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in this paragraph and, on that basis,
denies those allegations. Defendant admits that due to
deficiencies in the United States Patent Office records relating
to the alleged assignment of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,566,073 and
5,904,724, Defendant has been unable to definitively determine the
current ownership of these patents. Defendant admits that it received
notification from Optima Technology Group (“OTG”) dated July 14, 2008
alleging that the patents had been assigned to OTG. Defendant further
admits that OTG claimed that the patents were assigned in July 2004 —
four years before the date notice was received by NASA.
Statement of Facts – Current Case
14.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff submitted a request for records under
FOIA on June 28, 2008. Defendant lacks knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in the first sentence of this paragraph and, on
that basis, denies those allegations. Defendant admits that the FOIA
matter was assigned FOIA HQ 08-270. Defendant admits that Jan McNutt,
who worked in the NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel, was
assigned to conduct a search for records responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA
request. Defendant admits that Mr. McNutt sent Plaintiff a letter dated
August 5, 2008. The allegations in this paragraph purport to
characterize the contents of that letter. That letter speaks for itself
and contains the best evidence of its contents and thus no response is
required. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained at lines 15-18 of
this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations. Defendant
admits that Mr. McNutt is no longer employed with NASA. Defendant
admits the allegation contained in the last sentence of this paragraph.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 5 of 15
15.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in the
first sentence of this paragraph. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge
and information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those
allegations.
16.
Defendant admits that it withheld documents, citing
FOIA Exemption (b)(5), in its initial response to Plaintiff’s request
for records under the FOIA. Defendant admits that its first
response to Defendant's request for records under the FOIA did not
include the referenced March 19, 2009 letter from Gary Borda of the
NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel. Defendant admits that the
March 19, 2009 letter from Mr. Borda is the final agency action on the
administrative claim for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No.
5,904,724 originally filed by Plaintiff. Defendant lacks knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in the sentence at page 6, line 10 of this
paragraph regarding Plaintiff's allegation that he received the letter
from OTG and, on that basis, denies the allegation. The allegations
contained in the sentence at page 6, lines 10-12, and in the sentences
at page 6, line16, through page 7, line 2, purport to characterize the
contents of the March 19, 2009 letter. That letter speaks for itself
and contains the best evidence of its contents and thus no response is
required. Defendant denies the allegations contained at page 6, lines
12-14 of this paragraph. Defendant admits that the NASA
Headquarters Office of General Counsel belatedly conducted the initial
search of its files on Plaintiff's administrative claim in January 2009
and provided responsive documents to the NASA HQ FOIA office on
January 22, 2009. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was advised on
January 23, 2009 during a telephone call with Kellie Robinson, of the
NASA Headquarters FOIA Office, that the FOIA Office had received the
responsive documents resulting from the initial search for processing
on January 22, 2009. Defendant admits that Mr. Borda's March 19, 2009
letter was created after the initial search was conducted and was
therefore not within the scope of Plaintiff's FOIA request. Defendant
denies the allegations contained at page 7, lines 4-5 of this
paragraph and denies that any document that could constitute a “Borda
Patent Report” was ever prepared, much less withheld. The
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 6 of 15
allegations
contained at page 7, line 7, through page 8, line 7, constitute legal
conclusions to which no response is required. Defendant lacks knowledge
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained at page 8, lines 9-10 of this paragraph and, on
that basis, denies those allegations. Defendant admits that it did not
provide an estimate of volume of withheld documents in its initial
response to Plaintiff's FOIA request, as alleged at page 8, lines 12-13
of this paragraph.
17. Defendant admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.
18.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff spoke to Randolph Harris of the NASA
Headquarters Office of General Counsel on July 21, 2009 and on July 22,
2009. Defendant admits that Mr. Harris lacked personal knowledge
regarding the manner and timing of NASA’s response to Plaintiff's FOIA
appeal. Defendant admits that Mr. Harris declined to accept service on
behalf of Defendant by USPS Express Mail. Defendant admits that
Plaintiff e-mailed Mr. Harris a letter on July 21, 2009. The
allegations contained in this paragraph purport to characterize
the contents of that letter. That letter speaks for itself and contains
the best evidence of its contents and thus no response is
required. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form
a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
19.
Defendant admits that Mr. Harris did not reply to Plaintiff's July 21,
2009 letter. Defendant admits that Mr. McNutt sent Plaintiff an e-mail
asking for a 20-day extension of time in which to respond to
Plaintiff's FOIA appeal. That e-mail speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Defendant admits that, in a July 24, 2009
e-mail to Mr. McNutt, Plaintiff declined to provide the requested
extension of time. That e-mail speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Defendant denies that NASA acted in bad faith
or took improper advantage of any courtesies Plaintiff may have
extended. Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this
paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 7 of 15
20. Defendant admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.
21.
Defendant admits that it denied Plaintiff's FOIA
appeal in a letter dated August 5, 2009. The allegations contained in
this paragraph purport to characterize the contents of the August
5, 2009 letter. That letter speaks for itself and contains the best
evidence of its contents and thus no response is required. Defendant
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and, on that basis,
denies those allegations.
22. Defendant
admits that it sent documents comprising a supplemental response to
Plaintiff's June 2008 FOIA request in two boxes in November 2009 with a
cover letter from Stephen L. McConnell, NASA FOIA Officer.
Defendant admits that, upon further review of Defendant's FOIA
request as a result of the instant litigation, Defendant determined
that it would not be unreasonable to expand its search to include
documents and electronic records at NASA Field Centers even though
Plaintiff submitted his June 2008 FOIA request only to NASA
Headquarters. Defendant admits that Plaintiff did not submit a FOIA
request to any NASA Field Office seeking documents relating to the
review of his administrative claim for infringement. Defendant admits
that the cover letter stated that the supplemental response included
approximately 4,000 pages of documents. Defendant admits that 4,000 is
a number greater than
100. Defendant
admits that it did not provide an index of the documents included in
the supplemental response to Plaintiff’s 2008 FOIA request and that it
had no duty to do so. Defendant admits that there are duplicates
of documents included in the supplemental response to Plaintiff’s
2008 FOIA request. Defendant admits that certain documents were
withheld from the supplemental response to Plaintiff’s 2008 FOIA
request under FOIA Exemptions (b)3, (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6).
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this
paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 8 of 15
23.
Defendant denies the allegations contained at page
11, lines 11-14 of this paragraph. Defendant admits that it has not
provided any patent infringement analysis prepared by Mr. Frank
Delgado to Plaintiff. Defendant admits that such pre-decisional
information prepared at the request of Agency counsel was appropriately
withheld under FOIA Exemption (b)(5). Defendant denies the
allegations contained at page 11, lines 16-26, through page 12,
lines 1-13, of this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations in the
first sentence of subsection b. of this paragraph and admits that a
final agency determination was made on the administrative claim for
infringement originally filed by Plaintiff on March 19, 2009 — the date
that Mr. Borda, as the deciding official, issued his letter. The
allegations contained in the second sentence of subsection b. of this
paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations
contained in the second sentence of subsection b. of this paragraph are
denied. Defendant denies the allegations contained in subsection c. of
this paragraph. Defendant admits that it appropriately engaged in
communications with Michael Abernathy, as Defendant's contractor,
regarding the allegations of infringement initiated by Plaintiff.
Defendant admits that certain communications between Defendant and Mr.
Abernathy contained in the supplemental response to Plaintiff's 2008
FOIA request were redacted. Defendant admits that its employees
conducted a telephone conference that included Mr. Abernathy.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in subsection d.
of this paragraph. The allegations contained in subsection e. of this
paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant denies
that Mr. Abernathy is Defendant's agent.
24.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that certain
individuals are “major players,” and, on that basis, denies that allegation.
25.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained at page
14, lines 12-18 of this paragraph and, on that basis,
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 9 of 15
denies
those allegations. Defendant admits that it has appropriately redacted
or withheld certain documents included in the supplemental response to
Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA request under Exemptions (b)3, (b)(4),
(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the FOIA. The allegations contained at page 15,
line 3, through page 18, line 39, purport to characterize certain
documents contained in Defendant's supplemental response to
Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA. Those documents speak for themselves and contain
the best evidence of their contents and thus no response is required. Defendant
denies the remaining allegations contained at page 15, line 3, through
page 18, line 39. Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained at page
19, line 1, through page 20, line 2, and, on that basis, denies those
allegations. Defendant denies the allegations contained at page 20,
lines 4-6. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained at page 20, lines
8-26, and, on that basis, denies those allegations. The allegations
contained at page 21, line 1, through page 24, line 8, purport to
characterize certain documents contained in Defendant's supplemental
response to Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA request. Those documents speak for
themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents and thus no
response is required. Defendant denies that it made a determination
with regard to Plaintiff's claim in July 2004. The remaining
allegations contained at page 24, lines 11-22, constitute legal
conclusions to which no response is required. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained at page 24, line 24, through page 25, line
3, and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
26.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and, on
that basis, denies those allegations.
27. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained at page 25, lines 12-20, of this paragraph
and, on that basis, denies those allegations. The allegations
contained at page 25, line 21, through page 39, line 4, purport to
characterize certain documents contained in Defendant's supplemental
response to
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 10 of 15
Plaintiff's
2008 FOIA request. Those documents speak for themselves and contain the
best evidence of their contents and thus no response is required.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained at page 25, line 21, through page 39, line 4, of this paragraph.
28.
Defendant admits that it did not file a Request for Reexamination on
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,566,073 and 5,904,724. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in page 39, lines 9-21 of this paragraph.
The allegations contained at page 39, line 23, through page 40, line
15, constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations contained in the last sentence of
this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
29.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained at page 40, line 20,
through page 43, line 12, of this paragraph and, on that basis,
denies those allegations. The allegations contained at page 43, line
14, through page 67, line 17, purport to characterize certain documents
contained in Defendant's supplemental response to Plaintiff's 2008
FOIA request. Those documents speak for themselves and contain the
best evidence of their contents and thus no response is required.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
30. Defendant admits the allegations contained at page 67,
lines 21-29, except that Plaintiff filed his FOIA request on June 28,
2008 and Mr. McNutt requested a 90-day extension on August 5,
2008. The allegations contained at page 67, line 31, through page 70,
line 8, purport to characterize certain documents contained in
Defendant's supplemental response to Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA
request. Those documents speak for themselves and contain the best
evidence of their contents and thus no response is required. Defendant
denies the remaining allegations contained at page 67, line 31, through page 70, line 8.
31.
The allegations contained at page 70, lines 10-25, purport to
characterize certain documents contained in Defendant's supplemental
response to Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA request. Those documents speak for
themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents and thus
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 11 of 15
no
response is required. Defendant denies the remaining allegations
contained at page 70, lines 10-25. Defendant denies the allegations
contained at page 70, line 26, through page 71, line 8, of this
paragraph. The allegations contained at page 71, line 9, through page
74, line 6, purport to characterize certain documents contained in
Defendant’s supplemental response to Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA request.
Those documents speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents and thus no response is required. Defendant denies the
remaining allegations contained at page 71, line 9, through page 74,
line 6.
32. The allegations contained
at page 74, line 9, through page 76, line 3, purport to characterize
certain documents in Defendant's supplemental response to Plaintiff's
2008 FOIA request. Those documents speak for themselves and
contain the best evidence of their contents and thus no response is
required. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained at page
74, line 9, through page 76, line 3, in this paragraph. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained at page 76, lines 6-18 and, on that
basis, denies the allegations. The allegations contained at page 76,
lines 20-30, purport to characterize a technical report. That document
speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents
and thus no response is required. Defendant denies the remaining
allegations contained at page 76, lines 20-30 of this paragraph.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained at page 77,
lines 1-19 of this paragraph and, on that basis, denies those
allegations. The
allegations contained at page 77, line 20,
through page 84, line 25, purport to characterize
certain documents contained in Defendant's supplemental response
to Plaintiff's 2008 FOIA request. Those documents speak for themselves
and contain the best evidence of their contents and thus no
response is required. Defendant denies the remaining allegations
contained at page 77, line 20, through page 84, line 25, of this
paragraph.
33. Defendant admits that
Jeffrey L. Fox, a NASA civil servant employee at Johnson Space Center,
contributed to an article entitled Synthetic Vision Technology for
Unmanned
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 12 of 15
Systems:
Looking Back and Looking Forward. Defendant denies that NASA has
withheld documents that are not exempt from production. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33 and, on
that basis, denies those allegations.
34.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff sent an electronic
copy of a document named "auvsi_answer.pdf" to Mr. McNutt. Defendant
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 and,
on that basis, denies those allegations.
35.
The allegations contained in this paragraph consist
of Plaintiff's characterization of certain documents that are attached
to the second amended complaint. Those documents speak for
themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents and thus no
response is required. Defendant denies that it is engaging in a war
against Plaintiff and admits that doing so would be especially
difficult during the four and a half year period between January 2004
and July 2008 when neither Plaintiff nor OTC communicated at all with
Defendant regarding the patent claim. Defendant lacks knowledge
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35 and, on that basis,
denies those allegations.
36.
Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 and, on
that basis, denies those allegations.
37.
Defendant denies that it has acted illegally or
inappropriately, as Plaintiff suggests at pages 94-95. The allegations
at page 95, lines 1-11 purport to characterize the contents of a letter
from Mr. McNutt to Plaintiff. That letter speaks for itself and
contains the best evidence of its contents and thus no response is
required. Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 37 and, on that basis, denies those allegations.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 13 of 15
38.
The Court is respectfully referred to Section
1207.103 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for a full and
accurate description of its contents. Defendant denies that unethical
and/or criminal acts were committed by, at the behest of, or with
knowledge of NASA’s Office of the General Counsel. Defendant lacks
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 38 and, on
that basis, denies those allegations.
Cause of Action
(Breach of Duty to Disclose Responsive Documents)
39. Defendant repeats and re-alleges the responses made in paragraphs 1-38.
40.
The allegations contained in this paragraph
constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Defendant denies the allegations.
41.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff has exhausted his
administrative remedies under the FOIA. The remaining paragraphs of the
complaint contain Plaintiff's requested relief, to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary,
Defendant denies the allegations. Defendant further denies all
allegations of the complaint not previously expressly admitted.
Affirmative Defenses
AS
A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, defendant avers that the FOIA request that
is the subject of this lawsuit implicates information that is protected
from disclosure by one or more statutory exemptions, including,
but not limited to, Exemptions (b)3, (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) of the
FOIA. Disclosure of such information is not required or permitted.
Defendant
reserves the right to amend its answer with additional defenses of
which it may become aware and to raise any other matter constituting an
avoidance or affirmative defense.
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 14 of 15
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1. That judgement be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff;
2. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint;
3. For costs of suit; and
4. For such other relief as may be proper.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
/s/ Holly A. Vance
HOLLY A. VANCE
Assistant United States Attorney
Case 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Document 30 Filed 04/12/10 Page 15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
JED
MARGOLIN,
)
Case No. 3:09-CV-00421-LRH-VPC
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND )
SPACE ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________)
The undersigned hereby certifies that service of the foregoing ANSWER TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT has been made by electronic notification through the Court's
electronic filing system or, as appropriate, by sending a copy by first-class mail to the following
addressee(s) on April 12, 2010:
JED MARGOLIN
1981 Empire Road
VC Highlands, NV 89521-7430
/s/ Holly A. Vance