12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
GEORGE S. CARDONAActing United States AttorneyLEON W. WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil DivisionROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609)Assistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil DivisionDAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527)Assistant United States AttorneyRoom 7516, Federal Building300 North Los Angeles StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574Facsimile: (213) 894-7819Email: roger.west4@usdoj.govdavid.dejute@usdoj.govAttorneys for DefendantsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISIONCAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT,
et al.
,))Plaintiffs,))v.))BARACK H. OBAMA,
et al.
))Defendants.) ________________________________)No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx)NO HEARING DATE SCHEDULEDHon. Arthur Nakazato
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY AND INITIATION OF DISCOVERY
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 61 Filed 09/11/2009 Page 1 of 5
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.PROCEDURAL POSTURE
By Order dated September 10, 2009, the Court referredPlaintiffs’ First Amended Motion For Letters Rogatory AndInitiation Of Discovery to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. Bythat same order, the Court vacated the Plaintiffs’ hearing date ofSeptember 14, 2009.On September 10, 2009, Defendants filed an
ex parte
application requesting the Court to stay all discovery other thanthat which is necessary to counter Defendants’ challenges to theCourt’s subject matter jurisdiction. That
ex parte
application iscurrently pending before the Court.At no time have Plaintiffs in any way complied with the letteror the spirit of the pre-filing requirements for their motion. Inparticular, Plaintiffs have never requested or engaged in any pre-filing conference of counsel as required by Local Rule 37-1. Assuch, Plaintiffs could not and have not prepared a jointstipulation as required by Local Rule 37-2. Accordingly,Plaintiffs have not filed a joint stipulation in contravention toLocal Rule 37-2.4.
II.THE COURT SHOULD DENY THIS MOTION A.The Local Rules Require A Denial Of Plaintiffs’ Motion
The Local Rules require a pre-filing conference of counselprior to the filing of any discovery motion. See L.R. 37-1. Thispre-filing conference is mandatory:Prior to the filing of any motion relating to discovery
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 61 Filed 09/11/2009 Page 2 of 5
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26-37, counsel for the parties
shall confer
in a good faith effort . . ..L.R. 37-1 (emphasis added). The Local Rules also require thePlaintiffs in this case to have prepared and filed a jointstipulation. See L.R. 73-2. Plaintiffs have not complied withthese requirements.Failure to follow the pre-filing requirements precludes theCourt from hearing Plaintiffs’ motion:The Court
will not consider
any discovery motion in theabsence of a joint stipulation or a declaration fromcounsel [inapplicable here] . . ..L.R. 37-2.4 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ utter failure to followthe pre-filing requirements prevents their motion from being heardby this Court.Accordingly, this Court is respectfully requested to denyPlaintiffs Motion on the ground that the their failure to followthe Local Rules acts as a bar to this Court considering the Motion.
B.The Motion Should Be Denied For The Reasons Set Forth In TheEx Parte Application
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’
Ex Parte
Application for an order staying all non-jurisdictional discoveryuntil Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss can be heard on October 5,2009. As more fully explained in the Memorandum of Points andAuthorities accompanying that
Ex Parte
Application, Defendants’motion challenges the subject matter jurisdiction purportedlyconferred by Plaintiffs’ operative complaint. Because subjectmatter jurisdiction is a threshold issue challenging the very powerof the Court to proceed, discovery should be stayed until such time
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 61 Filed 09/11/2009 Page 3 of 5
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
KEYES v OBAMA - 61 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY AND INITIATION OF DISCOVERY
1.0K
Reads
0
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
