Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
8:12-cv-01137 #92

8:12-cv-01137 #92

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #92 - DOJ's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery
Doc #92 - DOJ's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Nov 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
STUART F. DELERYActing Assistant Attorney General, Civil DivisionAUGUST E. FLENTJEActing Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneralDAVID J. KLINEDirector, Office of Immigration LitigationDistrict Court SectionJEFFREY S. ROBINSAssistant DirectorJESI J. CARLSONSenior Litigation CounselTIMOTHY M. BELSAN (KS 24112)Trial AttorneyP.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 532-4596Facsimile: (202) 305-7000Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.govAttorneys for DefendantsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARTIN ARANAS, et al., ) No. 8:12-cv-1137-CBM (AJWx))Plaintiffs, )
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
)
OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY
v.
 
)
DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS
 )JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, )Department of Homeland Security, )et al., ) Hearing Date: November 26, 2012Defendants. ) Time: 11:00 a.m.______________________________ ) Judge: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92 Filed 11/08/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2265
 
 
1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
This Court should stay discovery proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs’ oppositiondoes not call into question Magistrate Judge Wistrich’s conclusion in his October 25,2012 Order that a stay of discovery may be warranted “in light of the characteristicsand potentially dispositive nature of the pending motions.”
See
Dkt. No. 66.Plaintiffs concede that they “do[]
not 
seek information relating to the pendingmotions to dismiss,”
see
Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Stay Discovery Proceedings(“Pls.’ Opposition”), Dkt. No. 81 at 7, and that resolution of the pending motions todismiss does not turn on any contested factual matter.
See
 
id 
. at 4. Plaintiffs also donot dispute that resolution of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s motion to dismiss,either independently or in combination with Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, hasthe potential to resolve the entire case.
See
 
generally id 
. Under these circumstances, astay of discovery until such motions have been resolved furthers the interests of  judicial economy and preservation of government resources.
See, e.g.
,
 Little v. City of Seattle
, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that when dispositive motions arepending, a stay “furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and litigants”).Moreover, despite Plaintiffs’ contention that discovery
may
be necessary forresolution of their motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction,
see
 Pls.’ Opposition at 7, Judge Wistrich previously found that “in the circumstances
it seems unlikely
that [P]laintiffs actually need discovery prior to the November 20, 2012hearing.”
1
 
See
Dkt. No. 66 (emphasis added). Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves note intheir opposition that:If the Court agrees with defendants that whether plaintiffs havesuffered irreparable harm “is at this point a legal question,” and thatdefendants have “not challenge[d] any of Plaintiffs’ factual allegationsbut rather accepted them as true for purposes of their opposition[s]” toplaintiffs’ motions, Dkt. No. 68-1 at 7, then
discovery may not berequired before the Court rules on plaintiffs’ motions for class
1
On November 7, 2012, Defendants filed an
ex parte
application to postpone this hearing by at leasttwo weeks until December 4, 2012, or until such date thereafter that this Court deems appropriate.
See
Dkt. No. 90.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92 Filed 11/08/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2266
 
 
2
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
certification and a preliminary injunction
.Pls.’ Opposition at 9 n.5 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Defendantsexpressly accepted Plaintiffs’ facts as true for purposes of their oppositions toPlaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction.
See
Defs.’Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Class Certification, Dkt. No. 35, at 3 n.3; Defs.’ Opp. to Pls.’Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Dkt. No. 39, at 2 n.1. Accordingly, and as explained more fullyin Defendants’ motion,
see
Dkt. No. 68-1 at 7-8, whether Plaintiffs have sufferedirreparable harm is indeed, at this point, a purely legal question. Thus, discovery is notneeded for this Court to rule on Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for apreliminary injunction.Finally, as this Court and the parties are aware, the Supreme Court is set toconsider eight petitions for a writ of certiorari or certiorari before judgment addressingthe constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA—the primary question presented in thepresent litigation
2
—at its conference scheduled for November 20, 2012.
See
Dkt. No.90. If the Supreme Court grants one or more of the pending petitions, theconstitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Courtin 2013. Permitting discovery in this case while cases presenting the very samequestion are pending before the Supreme Court could result in a waste of scarce judicial and governmental resources, and thus, a stay of discovery proceedings may beappropriate.
See generally Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Calif., Ltd.
, 593 F.2d 857,864 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that it would waste judicial resources and be burdensomeupon the parties to permit discovery and take evidence on the merits of the case at thesame time an arbitrator is going through a substantially parallel process).Accordingly, this Court should grant Defendants’ motion for a stay of discoveryproceedings for the reasons stated therein.
2
Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves concede that “DOMA § 3’s constitutionality is the
only
questionbefore this Court.”
See
Dkt. No. 87 at 5 (emphasis in original).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92 Filed 11/08/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2267

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->