in good faith. (PL’s Am. Answer, EOF No. 88 at 10.) The government cites authorities for the proposition that the defense may never be asserted against the government or private parties in suits to vindicate the public interest. (Def.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 89 at 6 (citing McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995) (citing Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138, 88 S.Ct. 1981, 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968) (exempting private parties who vindicate the public interest from defense))); SEC v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 502 F.Supp. 343, 348 (D.D.C.1980) (citing United States v. Second Nat’l Bank, 502 F.2d 535, 548 (5th Cir.1974)); United States v. W. Processing Co., 734 F.Supp. 930 (W.D.Wash.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate
holding unclean hands defense unavailable against the government holding qualified immunity defense unavailable to the united states in ftca action holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding that it would not accept defendant babbitts argument regarding unreasonable delay due to budgetary constraints in terms of breach of statutory duty but that instead the agency defense of unavailable resources must be reserved as a defense against contempt if an injunction issues holding qualified immunity unavailable because there was no government interest to balance