In a ground-breaking opinion issued hours ago, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak denied KBR’s motions to dismiss in Bixby v. KBR. I’ve attached a pdf copy of the opinion here: 89 – Opinion and Order

For law geeks: It’s a detailed opinion addressing subject matter jurisdiction that touches on political question doctrine, derivative sovereign immunity, and combat activities under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

I am pleased. So are our vets who I represent. It’s a good day. But there is still far to go.

Onward.

Yesterday, The Oregonian published this interesting piece in the Sunday opinion section. I have a number of reactions, but I think I’ll let it sit for now. My grandmother taught me the value of manners; one of her cardinal rules is that if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.

That’s not a rule that we honor in the courtroom where we will have a few things to say. The short version is that I’ll be interested to hear Mr. Williams’ answers to a few questions after he is placed under oath. But now is not the time, and this is not the place.

For those following this case, I’m simply noting yesterday’s publication so that you’re aware that it hasn’t escaped our attention. There will be a time and a place for testing some of the more wild assertions in the linked piece.

Yesterday, Mike Doyle and I appeared in U.S. District Court here in Oregon to argue against dismissal of 26 Oregon National Guard soldiers’ toxic exposure claims against Kellogg Brown and Root.

Judge Papak heard oral argument for close to an hour and half. As always, he was well prepared with tough questions for both sides. Oral argument in his courtroom isn’t so much about arguing the motions as answering his questions.  He really knows how to push and challenge both sides. I have to say that I welcome the challenge of stepping into his courtroom.

KBR claims that it is entitled to a dismissal because: 1) The political question doctrine prevents the court from reviewing the actions of the contractor; 2) KBR, as a government contractor, is immune from claims due to derivative sovereign immunity; and 3) KBR is immune because of the combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The soldiers made extensive arguments on all three motions. To prepare the briefs, we reviewed approximately 50,000 pages of documents and took depositions of Army and KBR witnesses in Houston, Dallas and St. Louis. The briefing is voluminous. The issues are complicated. But it seems to come down to KBR claiming that even though it was paid $7 billion on a secret, no bid, cost plus contract, its conduct falls outside the review of our justice system.

We’re waiting for Judge Papak’s ruling on these motions.  The case is on hold until he issues his decision.

Just came across this passionate and detailed response by KBR to questions posed by MSNBC regarding our soldiers’ sodium dichromate exposure at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in Iraq.  “Wow,” is about all I can muster by way of comment. I really can’t wait to try this case.

I’m at home this evening with two computers going side by side. On the desktop, I have a  several thousand page PDF of Army FOIA documents open, as I wade through KBR discovery. My laptop is up with a running digest of the interesting tidbits.  It’s my own odd-duck style of learning the case.

The phone rings, and I answer it absentmindedly.

“David Sugerman?,” asks the woman on the other side brightly.

“Yes?”

She runs on without a pause about how she’s calling to thank me for my great work and wondering whether she can help. Can she send money, or bake cookies, or weed my yard?

I stammer, “Who is this?” I have the presence of mind to not ask her how she got my number or why she’s calling a stranger out of the blue.

She chuckles lightly, “I’m just a Mom.”

“And why are you calling?”

“Because your work makes Portland great. And besides those guys are killers.”

Might be the exhaustion, or maybe it’s that I’ve lately been reflecting on my mother and wondering what she would have said about her son’s latest work. But for whatever reason, I was practically moved to tears.

Turns out that she had collapsed two people into one. She thought that Stu Sugarman, a Portland civil rights and criminal defense attorney, and I were the same person. It happens now and then…. I corrected her. And she STILL wanted to help and to send money. She wondered what she could do.

So this is what I said. “Do something great that you think matters and then drop me a line to tell me what you did.” She liked that.

A few thoughts before I go back to the mind-numbing document review.  There are some days when I know that I am blessed or–if you prefer–profoundly fortunate.  This is one.

So Mom, your call was a boost. Hope you don’t mind that I’m putting it down here. I imagine doing so will help me remember this moment as we trudge on toward trial.

Thanks and love-Just a son

Yes, I’m going to name names here. That’s how we do things. But before I start throwing the dirt, I want to be clear about what they’ve done.

Last week, a case I’ve been working on–Bixby v. KBR–got a lot of press. This is the Oregon National Guard soldiers’ toxic exposure injury case against KBR, Inc. (New motto: “We’re no longer Halliburton.”) [Brief note to KBR/Halliburton: That was a joke. -ed.]

Anyhow, I received a number of comments from friends and colleagues. Invariably, some included gentle ribbing about the picture of the middle-aged attorney who seems way more serious and sober than usual. Some included the kind of “Attaboy” comments from colleagues with whom I’ve shared foxholes.

Those are good. But there were a few that were better.

Over the course of the years, I’ve been up against talented and tough opposing counsel in all manner of cases. Two former (and future) adversaries took time to send notes and emails lauding my efforts and wishing me well on these cases. And these are the two Oregon lawyers who I want to call out by name.

Carol Bernick, Partner-in-Charge at Davis Wright Tremaine, and W.A. Jerry North, a shareholder at Schwabe Williamson Wyatt, have both been opposite me in hard-fought cases.  We’ve each had our wins and our losses in big cases.

Each of them wrote notes about the Oregon National Guard cases. The recognition is nice, but what’s better is what it says about the legal profession in Oregon. Both are top-notch opponents. Neither gives an inch in their cases. Still, they can recognize the work of a colleague.

This is why I treasure practicing law in Oregon.  Despite our differences and our courtroom fights, we still have the sense and wisdom to recognize the good works of our colleagues and opponents. When I talk to colleagues in other states, they can’t believe that we generally get along with opposing counsel, work toward stipulations on things on which we can agree, and then bring it full force to fight when we cannot agree. Our clients are well-served by all of this, and we who fight for a living gain a measure of comfort by knowing that the places and times we battle are simply what we do.

So Jerry and Carol show by quiet act what professionalism means to Oregon attorneys. I am deeply appreciative of their kind private messages. But more, it speaks to a vision of how Oregon attorneys carry themselves.  Thank you, friends, for your grace.

Late Friday, KBR filed its next motion to dismiss in Bixby v. KBR, Inc., 3:09 cv 00632-PK (D. Or.). Now the KBR defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. KBR raises the political question doctrine, sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act, and combatant activities doctrine. I’m especially tickled by the political question doctrine, as it cites Marbury v. Madison and Baker v. Carr.

For those whose geekiness knows no bounds, here is a pdf version of the memorandum: 46-1 KBR memo in support of motion to dismiss subj matter jur

No one said this case would be easy. (No one was right.)

My dear friend and frequent collaborator Robert Neuberger tells me that a really good case demands a theme song. I’m sure it’s pure happenstance, but I’ve already settled on a theme song for this case.  In the words of Tom Petty, “I won’t back down.”

I Won’t Back Down

I haven’t seen the complaint yet, but multiple media reports indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice filed a False Claims Act case against KBR, Inc. and its subcontractors over allegedly improper bills for security in Iraq. Here is the CNN report.

I’m taken by this KBR quote reprinted from the linked article:

“The government fails to acknowledge that the Army breached the contract by repeatedly failing to provide the necessary force protection and, in fact, frequently left KBR, its employees and its subcontractors unprotected,” KBR said.

As one of the lawyers representing Oregon National Guard soldiers who claim to have suffered toxic exposure injuries while protecting KBR employees in Iraq, I have a point of view. Regardless, I’m guessing that National Guard soldiers who provided security to KBR employees at Qarmat Ali site in Iraq might have a slightly different view.  Or perhaps KBR is forgetting about the soldiers that provided security at the Qarmat Ali site?

Fair to say I’ll be interested in how this one turns out.

Our toxic exposure case for Oregon National Guard vets exposed to sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali facility in Iraq continues. The case is against Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) and its various offshoots.  Background: Link to NBC Nightly News story and reflections on the case here.  Earlier updates on the case here.

Meantime, worth noting is that Senator Ron Wyden’s sent a letter today to Eric Shinseki, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding the matter. Here is a pdf copy-  Qarmat Ali vets letter fr Sen Wyden.

I am appreciative that Senator Wyden continues pushing on these issues. As well, Senator Merkley, Rep. Schrader, and Oregon Sen. Shields have carried this issue, too.  Some of this is about good constituent service, I suppose.

But in talking to Sen. Wyden, Sen.  Merkley, Oregon Sen. Shields and their staff members, I know that this is about more than simply providing service to voters.  We all agree that we owe our vets better. To my way of thinking, this includes that KBR face its day of reckoning.

To all of our leaders who continue advocating for our soldiers-I am sure you know from your own conversations that our Qarmat Ali vets deeply appreciate your continuing efforts.  One of our vets’ father served in Vietnam. He quietly shared with me his appreciation that a senator or a busy lawyer would come to the aid of his son. As he explained it, usually soldiers think that they can only rely on other soldiers.  I thanked him for his kind words and simply said that it was the very least we could do.

Sometimes the best legal advice to a recalcitrant client about their case is, “Stick a fork in it; it’s done.” And so it goes with KBR and the horrifying case of Jamie Leigh Jones.

When Ms. Jones claimed that she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq, KBR and Halliburton worked hard to keep her sexual assault case quiet by forcing it into mandatory arbitration. Fortunately, judicial wisdom prevailed, and KBR eventually lost the Jones case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  And those who trail behind her have the benefit of Senator Franken’s great work in limiting mandatory arbitration for defense contractors.

But KBR is both angry and undeterred. As this this report explains, KBR now disputes Ms. Jones’ allegations that she was drugged and gang raped by co-workers. KBR reportedly made those points in its brief seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

While Ms. Jones blew the whistle five years ago, KBR now says Ms. Jones fabricated her story. Odd if you think about it.  If KBR actually doubted Ms. Jones, wouldn’t they have taken that position years ago? And more to the point, given all the publicity over the rapes in Iraq, isn’t it fair to assume that they would want to fight this thing publicly and loudly?

I’ll admit to biases and a point of view. They come from two sources. First, I’m a father, a husband, a son and a brother. Every woman in my family has worked. When my wife and daughter go to work, I think it’s a modest demand that they not be subjected to sexual violence. Apart from that, I represent Oregon National Guard soldiers in unrelated litigation involving toxic exposures at Qarmat Ali. I am not intending to comment on that case–we’ll leave it to our proof.  Still, the KBR litigation posture is telling.

I suppose it’s just too much to demand that KBR simply accept that it lost and go to trial.  Owing to the genius of our founders, we have jury trials to allow impartial fact finders to decide cases. That right exists so that the Jaimie Leigh Jones’s of the world can force KBR to prove its defense or shut up.

David Sugerman