7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
1/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next page
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARTIN R.ARANAS,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
JANETNAPOLITANO,Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security; et al.,
Defendants.__________________________________
))))))
)))))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1554
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
2/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157
[email protected]@publiclawcenter.org
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710
Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:1555
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
3/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STUART F. DELERYActing Assistant Attorney General, Civil DivisionAUGUST FLENTJEActing Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneralDAVID J. KLINEDirector, Office of Immigration Litigation
JEFFREY S. ROBINSAssistant DirectorJESI J. CARLSON (DC 975478)Senior Litigation CounselP.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 305-7037Facsimile: (202) 305-7000Email: [email protected] M. BELSAN (KS 24112)
Trial Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:1556
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
4/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Paul D. [email protected]. Christopher [email protected]
Nicholas J. [email protected]
Michael H. [email protected]
BANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, N.W.Suite 470Washington, D.C. 20036202-234-0090 (telephone)202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:Kerry W. Kircher, General [email protected] Pittard, Deputy General [email protected] Davenport, Senior Assistant [email protected] B. Tatelman, Assistant [email protected] Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515202-225-9700 (telephone)202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant
the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of theUnited States House of Representatives
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:1557
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
5/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
The parties submit the following joint report pursuant to Rule 26(f),
Fed.R.Civ.P. and C.D. Cal. Loc. R. 26-1:
I NATURE AND BASIS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
A. Plaintiffs claims.
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging
discrimination in the granting of benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq., against lawfully married couples solely because
the spouses are of the same sex. Section 3(a) of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L.
104-199, 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419, codified at1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), bars federal
agencies from recognizing marriages between spouses of the same sex,
notwithstanding the lawfulness of those marriages under state law.1
Plaintiffs allege that defendants applying DOMA 3 to deny validly married
bi-national couples benefits under the INA merely because the spouses happen to be
of the same sex violates (1) the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution; and (2) the right to privacy and personal autonomy
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
1 1 U.S.C. 7 provides:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, orinterpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, theword marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husbandand wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is ahusband or a wife.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:1558
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
6/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
B. Defendants Position & Defenses
This case involves a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of
Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law
as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Plaintiffs challenge Section 3 of DOMA as it applies to the immigration rights of a
married same-sex couple.2 The suit is brought by individual Plaintiffs Jane DeLeon,
Irma Rodriguez, and Jane DeLeons son, Martin Aranas (collectively, Plaintiffs or
named Plaintiffs), and on behalf of the following proposed class:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom theDepartment of Homeland Security, pursuant to 3 of theDefense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7, has refused or willrefuse to recognize as spouses for purposes of conferringlawful status and related benefits under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
Mot. for Class Certification at 3, ECF No. 13.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants
application of Section 3 of DOMA in this case, as well as Defendants regulations,
Id.2As explained by the Attorney General on February 23, 2011, the Attorney General and thePresident have determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to same-sexcouples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law, and the Department of Justice willnot defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA under the equal protection component ofthe Fifth Amendment. The President, however, has instructed the Executive Branch, including theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS), to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA unless and until Congress repealsSection 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive decision against the laws constitutionality. 28U.S.C. 530D Letter from Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Feb. 23, 2011), at 5. See ECF No.5-2.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:1559
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
7/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
policies and practices applying Section 3 against Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated, are unlawful. Compl. at 29, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary
injunction enjoining Defendants from:
(1) deporting or removing immigrants denied lawful statussolely because they and their U.S. citizen or permanent residentspouses are of the same sex, and from instructing oradvising such immigrants to depart the United States;(2) denying employment authorization to immigrants lackinglawful permanent resident status solely because they andtheir U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses are of thesame sex;(3) denying immigration benefits under the INA solely
because the immigrant or the non-immigrant has a spouse of
the same sex; and(4) treating immigrants who have applied for benefits underthe INA as acquiring unlawful presence thereby triggeringthe three- and ten-year bars to future lawful admission set outin 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) solely because they and theirU.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses are of the samesex.
Mot. Prelim. Inj. Mem. at 2-3, ECF No. 12.3
Finally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from
denying U.S. citizen petitioners and their immigrant spouses applications for
benefits under the INA solely because the lawfully married U.S. citizens and
immigrant beneficiaries are of the same sex. Compl. at 29-30.
3Plaintiffs have set forth three different requests for relief (in their Motion for PreliminaryInjunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for PreliminaryInjunction and in the Proposed Order). While the language is similar in many respects, it is notidentical and does not request identical relief. Defendants citation is to the language set forth in thebody of Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12,at 2-3).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:1560
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
8/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Defendants agree with Plaintiffs that Section 3 of DOMA discriminates on the
basis of sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth
Amendment. That is why the Attorney General informed the Speaker of the House
of Representatives on February 23, 2011 that he would instruct the Department of
Justice to stop defending Section 3s constitutionality. See February 23, 2011 Letter
from U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to U.S. House of Representatives
Speaker, John A. Boehner, Notice to the Court, Ex. 2, ECF No. 5-2. Indeed, Plaintiff
Jane DeLeons consideration for an immigration benefit a discretionary waiver
under 8 U.S.C. 1182(i) of her inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)
has been curtailed because of the application of Section 3 of DOMA, a statute that
violates the Constitution. But Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs efforts to obtain a
broad preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Section 3 of DOMA for a
nationwide class because they have not shown a likelihood that there are class
members who are suffering imminent and irreparable harm. Further, such harm is
even less likely in the time frame presented. The Supreme Court is currently
considering petitions for certiorari in four cases involving the constitutionality of
Section 3 of DOMA. If the Court grants one of these petitions, the constitutionality
of Section 3 will be resolved in the next year. Thus, the balance of harms and the
public interest weigh in favor of foregoing a class-wide injunction at this time.
Rather than a broad, class-wide injunction, the injury caused to Ms. DeLeon and
the derivative injury caused to the other two named plaintiffs can and should be
remediated by a final judgment on the merits that Section 3 of DOMA is
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:1561
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
9/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
unconstitutional and that Ms. DeLeons waiver request must be considered without
regard to DOMA. See Opposition to Pls Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 39.
Moreover, Defendants believe Plaintiffs present motion for class certification
should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the class definition is defective
because it is overly broad and is not limited to individuals who have standing; and
(2) the putative class fails to meet the requirements for class certification set forth in
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Opposition to Pls Mot. for
Class Certification, ECF No. 35.
Lastly, consistent with the Attorney Generals direction, the Department of
Justice will defend DOMA Section 3 against claims that do not involve the equal
protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and will defend against other
challenges unrelated to DOMA. On that basis, on September 28, 2012, the Secretary
of DHS, the Director of USCIS, and USCIS (collectively Defendants) moved to
dismiss Plaintiffs Martin Aranas and Irma Rodriguez from this action for lack of
standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants also
moved to dismiss Plaintiffs substantive due process claim and Plaintiffs sex
discrimination claim brought under the Immigration and Nationality Act at 8 U.S.C.
1152(a)(1)(A), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Defs.
Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46.
C. Intervenor-Defendants defenses
Intervenor-Defendants Defenses: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge DOMA
Section 3. Even if plaintiffs had standing, DOMA Section 3 is constitutional under
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:1562
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
10/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
both the equal protection and substantive due process components of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See generally Memorandum of Intervenor-
Defendant . . . in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 9, 2012), attached at Tab 2 to
Ex Parte Application of Intervenor-Defendant for Leave to File Two Separate Legal
Memoranda, Each in Excess of 25 Pages (Oct. 9, 2012) (ECF No. 50).
II POSSIBILITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
A Plaintiffs position
Defendants agree that DOMA 3 unconstitutionally denies same-sex spouses
equal protection of the law, but have indicated they will continue to follow 3 until
the judicial branch delivers a definitive verdict against the laws constitutionality.
Letter from Hon. E. Holder to Hon. J. Boehner, February 23, 2011, reprinted in
Attachment 2 to [Defendants] Notice to Court, July 25, 2012 (Dkt. No. 47).
Given this concession, plaintiffs believe settlement of this action all but certain
should the U.S. Supreme Court disapprove DOMA 3, an outcome plaintiffs
consider increasingly likely before post-appellate final judgment could issue in this
matter. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558; 123 S.Ct. 2472; 156 L.Ed.2d 508
(2003); andRomer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620; 116 S. Ct. 1620; 134 L. Ed. 2d 855
(1996);Massachusetts v. United States HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012).
As explained in their pending motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs
believe that immigrants who areprima facie eligible for lawful status but for DOMA
3 should be protected from irreparable injury via interim relief pending a definitive
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 10 of 23 Page ID#:1563
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
11/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA 3. Plaintiffs have sought defendants
agreement to such a plan, albeit as of yet without success.
B. Defendants position
Defendants do not believe that further settlement discussions would be
beneficial at this time.
C Intervenors position
Intervenor-Defendant does not believe settlement in this case is possible
because the constitutionality of federal statutes is at issue.
III DISCOVERY PLAN
A. Changes re: disclosures under Rule 26(a)
Plaintiffs Position:
At this time plaintiffs propose no changes to the initial disclosure requirements
of Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
Defendants Position:
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants do not believe discovery should
move forward at this time. Accordingly, Defendants object to providing initial
disclosures until either 14 days after the Court has ruled on the pending dispositive
motions (in the event that the litigation goes forward) or the Court rules that
discovery should commence prior to that time, at which time the Defendants will
serve initial disclosures 14 days after such an order. Defendants also request that the
Court stay any other pretrial deadlines pending the outcome of the dispositive
motions.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 11 of 23 Page ID#:1564
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
12/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
B. Subjects for discovery, discovery cut-off date, and whether
discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited
Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs proposed to conduct discovery in two phases: In
the first, plaintiffs propose to conduct discovery into the factual claims defendants
raise in opposition to plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction and class
certification.4 Defendants have thus far declined to cooperate in discovery, and
plaintiffs intend to seek a court order requiring that defendants answer limited
discovery prior to the time plaintiffs replies to defendants opposition to class
certification and preliminary injunction are due, or latest prior to the hearing on
plaintiffs pending motions.
Plaintiffs propose a general discovery cutoff date of February 1, 2013, with the
parties having 30 days from the date expert witnesses, if any, are identified, to
conduct depositions of experts.
Defendants position:
As previously indicated, Defendants believe that any discovery should be
stayed until the Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss.
Moreover, Defendants believe it is necessary to revisit the discovery cut-off
deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs after the Court rules on the dispositive motions. As
stated, even if the Court were to conclude that discovery may commence at this time,
4 On September 10, 2012, and September 25, 2012, plaintiffs served defendants with a notice ofdeposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) and a first set of interrogatories, requests for admissions, andrequests for production of documents, respectively.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 12 of 23 Page ID#:1565
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
13/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
the deadlines are far too short and would likely need to run at least until the summer
of 2013.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Because plaintiffs have insisted on commencing discovery, Intervenor-
Defendant intends to serve comprehensive written discovery requests on plaintiffs
and the Executive Branch defendants by the end of October. Intervenor-Defendant
will determine later whether any depositions are needed.
Regarding Plaintiffs proposed discovery cutoff, Intervenor-Defendants
position is that it is too early in this proceeding, with dispositive motions pending, to
set a time for the close of discovery. At a minimum, Intervenor-Defendant believes
that the discovery cut-off date proposed by Plaintiffs is too early. Accordingly,
Intervenor-Defendant proposes that discovery end no earlier than April 30, 2012.
Finally, Intervenor-Defendant does not agree with , and sees no need for,
Plaintiffs proposed two-phase discovery approach.
C. Issues re: discovery of electronically stored information
Plaintiffs anticipate no such issues at this time.
Defendants position:
Defendants do not believe this case should involve electronic discovery.
However, Plaintiffs have indicated that they will likely want electronically stored
information, which Defendants understand to mean documents that are stored or
maintained in an electronic format. The parties have agreed to revisit the specifics
concerning this issue when and if it becomes necessary.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 13 of 23 Page ID#:1566
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
14/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Intervenor-Defendants position:
No position on this issue at this early stage of the case. Intervenor-Defendant
reserves the right to revise its position as circumstances warrant.
D. Claims of privilege
Plaintiffs anticipate no such claims at this time.
Defendants position:
Defendants will assert all appropriate objections and privileges to discovery
requests at the appropriate time. To the extent such privileges are asserted with
regard to requests for the production of documents, Defendants will provide an
appropriate privilege log specifying any documents withheld or redacted for
privilege and the specific privilege being invoked.
The parties have agreed that the inadvertent production of information subject
to the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, deliberative process
privilege, law enforcement privileges, and/or any other applicable privileges
(Privileged Information) will not constitute a waiver of any such privileges or
protections. Promptly upon discovering that it has produced any Privileged
Information, the producing party will notify the other party in writing and designate
the inadvertently produced document on a privilege log. Upon receipt of such
notice, the receiving party will not review such documents further (except for the
purposes of identifying them for their return to the disclosing party and/or
destruction) and will then either return all copies of the same to the producing party
or, at the producing partys option, destroy them.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 14 of 23 Page ID#:1567
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
15/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Intervenor-Defendant proposes that the parties agree to return any privileged
or work-product materials as soon as it is discovered they were produced and the
receiving party or parties is/are notified of the disclosure by the producing party,
without any need to show that production was inadvertent. Intervenor-Defendant
further proposes that the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith concerning
this and other issues that arise in this area.
E. Changes in the limitations on discovery
At this time plaintiffs propose no changes to the limitations on discovery.
Defendants position:
As Defendants have stated above, any discovery should be stayed until the
Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
No position on this issue at this early stage of the case. Intervenor-Defendant
reserves the right to revise its position as circumstances warrant.
F. Other discovery orders the court should issue
If discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG agree that a
Stipulated Protective Order regarding confidentiality issues will be negotiated at the
appropriate time.
G. Other Issues:
Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG have agreed to permit the service of
discovery requests by electronic mail, while still permitting an additional three days
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 15 of 23 Page ID#:1568
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
16/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
to be added to the date of service for responses to such discovery, as provided by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d).
Defendants do not consent to the transfer of this case to a Magistrate Judge
and believe the case should remain before the assigned District Court Judge.
Defendants reserve the right to assert all appropriate objections to any and all
discovery requests, to assert all appropriate privileges, and to update this document,
as appropriate.
IV COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG do not believe this a complex case within
the meaning of Local Rule 26-1(a) or that any part of the part of the procedures of
the Manual For Complex Litigation should be utilized in the management of this
action.
V MOTION SCHEDULE
Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have already brought motions to dismiss
which seek orders that could be dispositive or partially dispositive of plaintiffs
instant claims.
Plaintiffs position: Plaintiffs anticipate moving for summary judgment or
partial summary adjudication shortly after the completion of discovery. Plaintiffs
propose a cutoff date for dispositive motions of March 1, 2013.
Defendants position:
As Plaintiffs have indicated, there currently are four motions pending before
this Court: (1) Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 12; (2)
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 16 of 23 Page ID#:1569
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
17/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 13; (3) BLAGs Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 36; and (4) Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46.
Defendants suggest revisiting the motion schedule upon the Courts ruling on the
four pending motions.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Intervenor-Defendant believes the Court should not establish a motions
schedule at this time, but rather should revisit this issue, if necessary, after the Court
resolves the pending motions to dismiss filed by Intervenor-Defendant and the
Executive Branch defendants.
VI ADR
Pursuant to Local Rule 16-15,
Plaintiffs position: Plaintiffs select ADR Procedures Nos. 1 or 2 (The parties
shall appear before a neutral selected from the Court's Mediation Panel) as best
suited to the circumstances of the case. Plaintiffs contend the ADR session should
occur immediately.
Defendants position:
Defendants do not believe that ADR would be beneficial or result in a
settlement of this matter at this time. If the Court determines that ADR is necessary,
Defendants select ADR Procedure No. 1 (The parties shall appear before the
magistrate judge assigned to the case for such settlement proceedings as the judge
may conduct or direct).
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 17 of 23 Page ID#:1570
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
18/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
As noted above, Intervenor-Defendant does not believe settlement in this case
is possible because the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. Accordingly,
Intervenor-Defendant requests relief from L.R. 16-15 inasmuch as the Alternative
Dispute Resolution process cannot result in resolution of this case.
VII TRIAL ESTIMATE
Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs believe this matter may be resolved by way of
dispositive motions and that no trial will be required. Should trial prove necessary,
plaintiffs preliminarily estimate needing three days to present their case in chief.
Defendants position:
Defendants do not believe that a trial is necessary to resolve the questions of
law before this Court. Defendants believe that this case can be resolved through
motions practice. Accordingly, to the extent the Court determines a trial to be
necessary, Defendants suggest this issue should be addressed at a later date and have
proposed no dates for a pretrial conference, trial estimate, or trial date.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Given the early stage of the case and the fact that dispositive motions are
pending, Intervenor-Defendant is not in a position to estimate trial length or provide
a list of trial counsel at this time. Intervenor-Defendant will amend its position at an
appropriate time should it become necessary.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 18 of 23 Page ID#:1571
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
19/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
VIII ADDITIONAL PARTIES
Plaintiffs Position: Depending on court rulings regarding standing,
numerosity, etc., plaintiffs may move to join additional persons as proposed class
representatives.
Defendants position:
Defendants do not have a position on this issue at this time.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
Intervenor-Defendant does not anticipate joining additional parties at this time.
IX EXPERT WITNESSES
Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs [or: The Parties] do not at this time anticipate
calling expert witnesses. Should that change, plaintiffs propose that the disclosures
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) occur 90 days prior to the date this matter is set for trial.
Defendants position:
Defendants do not anticipate the need for expert discovery at this time.
However, Defendants reserve their right to call such experts as necessary and believe
this issue should be revisited if discovery moves forward.
Intervenor-Defendants position:
At this early stage of this case, Intervenor has not determined whether it may
call any experts. It reserves its right to do so.
Dated: October 17, 2012. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 19 of 23 Page ID#:1572
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
20/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald MarzoukMonica Ashiku
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner
/s/ Peter A. Schey ________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: October 17, 2012 STUART F. DELERYActing Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Division
AUGUST E. FLENTJEActing Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DAVID J. KLINEDirector, Office of Immigration Litigation
JEFFREY S. ROBINSAssistant Director
/s/ Jesi J. CarlsonJESI J. CARLSON (DC 975478)Senior Litigation CounselP.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 305-7037Facsimile: (202) 305-7000Email: [email protected]
TIMOTHY M. BELSANTrial Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 20 of 23 Page ID#:1573
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
21/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Dated: October 17, 2012 Paul D. [email protected]/s/ H. Christopher BartolomucciH. Christopher [email protected]
Nicholas J. [email protected] H. [email protected]
BANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, N.W.Suite 470Washington, D.C. 20036202-234-0090 (telephone)
202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:Kerry W. Kircher, General [email protected] Pittard, Depy General [email protected] Davenport, Sr. Asst [email protected] B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel
[email protected] Beth Walker, Assistant [email protected]
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,U.S. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515202-225-9700 (telephone)
202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant theBipartisan Legal Advisory Group of theUnited States House of Representatives
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 21 of 23 Page ID#:1574
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
22/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 22 of 23 Page ID#:1575
7/30/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #67
23/23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2012, I electronically filed
the foregoing JOINT REPORT with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system,
which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of
record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: October 17, 2012 /s/ ____________________Peter Schey
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 23 of 23 Page ID#:1576
Top Related