Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 6 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 2:18-cv-0939 (MJP) MOTION TO RE-NOTE/NOTE ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR THE SAME DATE AND CONSOLIDATE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT NOTING DATE: JULY 20, 2018 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 2 of 6 1 2 Defendants respectfully move to re-note Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 15) 3 until the same date as Defendants’ motion to dismiss, transfer, or hold Plaintiffs’ claims (Dkt. 22). On 4 June 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs (“the States”) filed this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. 5 Less than a week later, the States moved for expedited discovery and regular status conferences, see 6 Dkt. 15. The States, treating their filing as a second Friday motion, noted the hearing for July 13, 7 2018. 1 In addition to responding to the States’ motion for expedited briefing, Defendants moved this 8 Court to dismiss, or, alternatively, transfer or stay this Court’s proceedings pending the resolution of 9 the nationwide class action in Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal.). Defendants’ motion is a fourth- 10 Friday motion, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(d)(3), is noted for August 3, 2018. Defendants now 11 seek to re-note the States’ motion for expedited discovery for hearing on the same date as Defendants’ 12 motion. Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with the States’ counsel regarding this motion— 13 Plaintiffs oppose this motion. In light of the States’ concern that their motion be considered 14 expeditiously, Defendants propose they their motion be re-noted for hearing earlier than August 3. 15 Defendants therefore request that both motions be noted for July 27, 2018, or on another date 16 convenient to the Court, and any briefing deadlines be adjusted accordingly, so that both motions, 17 which, as explained below, are intertwined, may be noted and decided on the same date. 18 Local Civil Rule 7(1) allows the Court to re-note a pending motion to “ensure compliance 19 with applicable court rules or for other reasons.” This Court should exercise its discretion to hear 20 both motions at the same time because it will serve the interests of justice. The Court has inherent 21 discretion to control the disposition of the cases on its docket in a manner that will promote economy 22 of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. See, e.g., Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 23 248, 254 (1936); Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting 24 the trial court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar). Nothing prevents 25 this Court from considering both motions together. See, e.g., Garo v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 26 Because the Court has not yet set any deadlines and the Rule 26(f) conference has yet to take place, Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ characterization of their motion as a second-Friday motion, as one they seeks to move a deadline. See LCR 7(d). Rather, Plaintiffs motion should be construed as a third-Friday motion, with a noting date of July 20, 2018. 1 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 3 of 6 1 2010 WL 5108605 (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2010) (determining multiple motions, including motion to dismiss 2 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Tavares v. Bruckner, No. 10-cv-5922, 2011 WL 1988449 (W.D. 3 Wash. May 2, 2011) (denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s 4 motion to dismiss); Grondal v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (E.D. Wash. 2010) (deciding six 5 motions, including defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ 6 motions for summary judgment). 7 The motions should be heard together because, as explained in greater detail in both the 8 Government’s opposition to the discovery motion and its motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay, Dkt. 9 21 (Defendants’’ Opp. To States’ Mot. for Expedited Discovery), and Dkt. 22 (Defendants’ Mot. to 10 Dismiss, Transfer, or Hold Case), there is significant overlap in the issues raised by the States’ and 11 Defendants’ motions, as well as, the significant overlap in issues between the States’ case and the Ms. 12 L. case that could potentially result in inconsistent rulings on procedural, discovery, and substantive 13 issues. See Dkt. 1, 15, 21, and 22. First, the issue of States’ standing is relevant to the disposition of 14 their motion for expedited discovery. See Dkt. 21. Because the States’ claims are non-justiciable, they 15 cannot demonstrate the requisite good cause necessary for the expedited relief they seek where there 16 are threshold questions about all of their claims. See Dkt. 21. Thus, the States’ motion for expedited 17 discovery should not be considered before the Court determines whether the States have standing to 18 bring these claims in the first place. See Dkt. 21. Second, there is significant overlap between the 19 issues raised and the relief sought in the States’ case and the claims being litigated in Ms., where the 20 individuals whose interests the States invoke have secured nationwide class certification and an 21 injunction requiring reunification with their children. See Dkt. 22. If the States’ motion is heard before 22 the Government’s motion, the outcome could serve to interfere with the orderly administration of 23 the Ms. L. class action, its injunction, and potentially risk inconsistent adjudications and obligations 24 tied to the same claims. See Dkt. 21 and 22. And finally, because the arguments raised in the 25 Government’s motion, directly implicate the propriety of the States’ request for expedited discovery 26 the Court should note both motions for the same date and hold a consolidated hearing on both 27 motions should a hearing be necessary. See Levias v. Pac. Maritime Ass’n, No. C09-302 RSL, 2010 WL 28 3 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 4 of 6 1 2217839, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 28, 2010) (granting the plaintiffs’ motion to renote Defendants’ 2 summary judgment motion, where the “request [was] reasonable and warranted under the 3 circumstances”). Given the overlapping and intertwined issues presented in both motions, 4 consolidation of the hearing dates makes sense and will conserve the resources of both this Court 5 and the parties. Doing so will avoid the inefficiency of duplicative hearings, and will ensure that this 6 Court has relevant information before it when deciding Plaintiffs’ motion so that it does not issue a 7 decision that risks conflicting with the Ms. L. litigation. 8 Accordingly, Defendants seek a brief continuance of the hearing date on the States’ motion 9 for expedited discovery in order to allow the parties to consolidate both parties’ motions for the same 10 noting day and a hearing, if any, on the parties’ overlapping motions. Because consolidation would 11 serve the interests of all, Defendants respectfully ask that the Court re-note Plaintiffs’ hearing date 12 to July 27, or any other date convenient for the Court. 13 // 14 // 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 5 of 6 1 DATED: July 11, 2018 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel to the Ass’t Attorney General 3 4 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director 5 6 EREZ REUVENI Assistant Director 7 8 /s/ Nicole N. Murley NICOLE N. MURLEY Trial Attorney JOSHUA S. PRESS Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Phone: (202) 616-0473 Nicole.Murley@usdoj.gov 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Attorneys for the United States of America and the Federal Defendants 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23 Filed 07/11/18 Page 6 of 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on July 11, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to 3 the Clerk’s Office using the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington’s Electronic 4 Document Filing System (ECF), which will serve a copy of this document upon all counsel of record. 5 By: /s/ Nicole N. Murley NICOLE N. MURLEY Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY CASE NO 2:18-CV-00939-MJP State of Washington, et al. v. United States, et al., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23-1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 2 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., No. 2:18-cv-0939 (MJP) Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE/NOTE ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR THE SAME DATE AND CONSOLIDATE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Re-note/Note all Pending Motions for the Same Date and Consolidate for Oral Argument. Having considered the motion, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and re-notes both Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery and Regular Status Conferences and Defendants’ Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, Transfer Venue, or, Alternatively, Hold the Case in Abeyance for July 27, 2018. Dated: July ______, 2018 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE Case No. 2:18-cv-0939 (MJP) _____________________________ HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN United States District Judge U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 23-1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 2 of 2 Presented by: CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel to the Ass’t Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director EREZ REUVENI Assistant Director NICOLE N. MURLEY Trial Attorney JOSHUA S. PRESS Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Phone: (202) 305-0106 joshua.press@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States of America and the Federal Defendants [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RENOTE Case No. 2:18-cv-0939 (MJP) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OIL-DCS P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 TELEPHONE: (202) 616-0473 FACSIMILE: (202) 305-7000