5. On September 2, 2011
one month past the original date for filing an answer
Defendant filed not an answer but a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Standing.6. On February 3, 2012, this Court ruled that the Brown family had standing tochallenge the law.
Brown v. Herbert
, 2:11-CV-0652-CW, 2012 WL 380110 (D. Utah Feb. 3,2012).7. On March 20, 2012, Defense Counsel Jerry Jensen responded to inquiries from
Professor Jonathan Turley seeking to establish a pre-trial schedule. Mr.Jensen indicated that he wanted to stay discovery and instead have the parties file dispositivemotions.8. On March 30, 2012, Professor Turley agreed to the proposal but asked for a filingdate of April 23, 2012 for cross motions, which would have allowed a filing three months after
the Court’s ruling and scheduling order.
9. On April 3, 2012, Mr. Jensen stated that he needed more time and, after repeatedefforts to confirm a schedule with Defendant, Plaintiffs agreed to a schedule for dispositivemotions to be filed on May 31.10. On May 3, 2012, Defendant Buhman agreed to the following statement to theCourt (emphasis added):Soon after the prior order scheduling a pre-
trial hearing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel
contacted opposing lead counsel to suggest a joint motion on pre-trial schedulingand discovery. Defense counsel indicated a desire to postpone discovery in favorof a summary judgment motion based on the pleadings. Plaintiffs consent to sucha schedule and reserve the right to also file a motion for summary judgment.Given
the intended filing of a motion for summary judgment (or cross motions for summary judgment),
the parties believe that the May hearing is an unnecessary
expenditure of the Court’s time as well as an unnecessary cost for the parties,
including out-of-town counsel. Obviously, once these threshold motions areresolved, the parties and the Court would be in a better position to judge the needfor discovery and any outstanding pre-trial issues.
Case 2:11-cv-00652-CW-BCW Document 61 Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 7