8/14/2019 5 Obama

1/3

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC Initials of Deputy Clerk kh_

CIVIL - GEN Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx) Date: September 16, 2009

Title: CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, ET AL. V. BARACK H. OBAMA, ET AL.

DOCKET ENTRY[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at their

respective most recent address of record in this action on this date.]

Date:____________ Deputy Clerk: ___________________________________

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

Kristee Hopkins Not PresentCourtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY

OF DISCOVERY

Before the Court is DefendantsEx Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery (the

"Motion"). The Court finds the Motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED.R.

CIV.P.78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for the

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging, in pertinent part, that President

Barack Obama (the President) does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the

President, as specified by Article II, 1, cl. 5 of the United States Constitution. More specifically,

Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, and not

Hawaii, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that the President was a

citizen of Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 66 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 3

8/14/2019 5 Obama

2/3

8/14/2019 5 Obama

3/3

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC Initials of Deputy Clerk kh_

CIVIL - GEN Page 3 of 3

discretion to stay discovery because a stay would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs express

concern that they would be prejudiced by the stay because it will allow Defendants to blanketly block

all discovery requests on the basis that the discovery has no relevance to subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion (Pl. Opp.) at 11. Plaintiffs concern is ill-founded because the

Court, through Magistrate Judge Nakazato who handles discovery matters, is the arbiter of whether the

discovery has relevance to subject matter jurisdiction, not Defendants.

Plaintiffs also argue that if discovery does not commence until October 5, 2009, all

parties would have limited time to conduct discovery prior to the discovery cut off date, due to the

January 26, 2010 trial date. Pl. Opp. at 10. The Court appreciates that Plaintiffs may find that a delay

in discovery hampers their ability to be ready for trial by January 2010. However, the January 2010

trial date has not been finalized. The Court will accommodate Plaintiffs concerns by hearing any

proposed new trial dates at the October 5, 2009 Scheduling Conference.

III. OUTCOME

The Court hereby GRANTS DefendantsEx Parte Application for Limited Stay of

Discovery.

All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants Motion to

Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction fo

Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 66 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 3 of 3