Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 137 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
)
capacity as President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR A BRIEFING SCHEDULE
On January 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a status report and request for a case management
schedule, see ECF No. 135, which this Court has construed as a motion for a briefing schedule,
see ECF No. 136. Plaintiffs filed their status report before Defendants’ counsel was able to
respond with Defendants’ position. See ECF No. 135-1, Exh. 8. Accordingly, Defendants hereby
submit this brief memorandum in response to Plaintiffs’ status report, and in opposition to
Plaintiffs’ request for a briefing schedule.
1. Plaintiffs first request that the Court “promptly enter a preliminary injunction against”
both the September 24 Proclamation and the October 23 Joint Memorandum. See Pls.’ Status
Report at 1. As Defendants previously explained in their opposition memoranda, however, there
is no basis for any injunctive relief against the Proclamation or the Joint Memorandum. See ECF
No. 113 (Proclamation); ECF No. 121 (Joint Memorandum).
Indeed, the events described in Plaintiffs’ status report only further confirm that it would
be inappropriate for the Court to enter injunctive relief here. With respect to the Proclamation, the

-1-

 Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 137 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 5

Supreme Court has stayed in full the IRAP and Hawaii preliminary injunctions. See Pls.’ Status
Report at 2. This Court should not issue preliminary relief against the Proclamation, therefore,
because any such relief would be directly at odds with the Supreme Court’s stay orders. See Order
(ECF No. 101) at 4 (concluding that when the Supreme Court has stayed an injunction granting
particular relief, “[t]his court . . . has no authority to grant” that same relief); see also ECF No. 95
at 7-10.
As for the October 23 Joint Memorandum, Plaintiffs here challenge only the provision
governing refugee applicants who are nationals of the eleven SAO countries, see ECF No. 121
at 15, but the Western District of Washington has already enjoined that policy nationwide (except
for refugees lacking a bona fide relationship to a person or entity within the United States). See
Pls.’ Status Report at 3; Doe v. Trump, Case No. C17-178-JLR, Order of Dec. 23, 2017 (ECF
No. 135-1, Exh. 2). At least while that injunction remains in effect, therefore, Plaintiffs here
cannot demonstrate irreparable harm warranting an additional preliminary injunction from this
Court. See Order (ECF No. 84) at 2 (declining to enter injunctive relief in light of two existing
preliminary injunctions); see also ECF Nos. 26, 82.
2. Plaintiffs alternatively request that “this Court set a case management schedule allowing
for expeditious resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims on the merits.” Pls.’ Status Report at 1. As this
Court previously recognized, however, the most prudent course would be to stay this case pending
resolution of all appellate proceedings, including any Supreme Court proceedings, regarding the
existing IRAP, Hawaii, and Doe injunctions. See Order (ECF No. 91) at 2 (“[A] stay pending the
result of the Supreme Court’s decision is the most appropriate path for conserving the court’s
resources and adjudicating these cases in the most efficient manner possible.”). The same factors

-2-

 Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 137 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 5

motivating the Court’s prior stay Order—substantial overlap of the legal issues, and the requested
stay not being indefinite—are equally applicable here. See id.
Moreover, a stay is particularly warranted with respect to Plaintiffs’ challenge to the
October 23 Joint Memorandum, given the imminent expiration of the policy that Plaintiffs seek to
challenge. Under the terms of the Joint Memorandum, the SAO review period is scheduled to last
no more than 90 days. See Jt. Mem. (ECF No. 117-4) at 3 (“We will direct our staff to work jointly
and with law enforcement agencies to complete the additional review of the SAO countries no
later than 90 days from the date of this memorandum[.]”). Because the Joint Memorandum was
issued October 23, 2017, that means the challenged SAO policy is currently set to expire
January 21, 2018. It makes little sense to allow further proceedings at this stage, given that
Plaintiffs’ challenge will imminently become moot.
3. Even were this Court inclined to allow Plaintiffs’ challenges to proceed, the Court
should not set a case management schedule, but should instead—at most—set a deadline for
Defendants to respond to the third amended complaint.

As both parties have recognized,

Defendants’ response to the complaint would be the appropriate next step in this litigation. See
Pls.’ Status Report at 1; Nov. 2 Hr’g Tr. at 81-82.
Of course, for all of the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully submit that it
would make little sense to proceed with motion-to-dismiss briefing in this case given the ongoing
appellate proceedings regarding the Proclamation, and the imminent mootness of the challenged
SAO policy. In any event, however, the Court should not permit Plaintiffs to pursue discovery,
see Pls.’ Status Report at 6, before a motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and decided. See,
e.g., Loumiet v. United States, 225 F. Supp. 3d 79, 82 (D.D.C. 2016) (“[C]ourts in this district have
often stayed discovery while a motion that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in the

-3-

 Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 137 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 5

Complaint is pending.”). That is particularly true here, where Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery is
likely to be highly intrusive, and the parties are likely to have significant disputes regarding the
availability and scope of any discovery as well as over the application of important legal privileges.
Given that litigation over these questions would itself be quite burdensome—for both the parties
and the Court—the Court should not invite these disputes at this stage of the litigation, before a
threshold motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and decided.
Thus, while a stay of all proceedings is the most prudent course, the Court should, at most,
set a deadline by which the Government must respond to the third amended complaint. In that
scenario, Defendants respectfully request 21 days to file their response to the third amended
complaint, which contains 254 allegations and is 77 pages long. See ECF No. 123.
CONCLUSION
The Court should stay all proceedings in this case pending resolution of all appellate
proceedings, including any Supreme Court proceedings, regarding the IRAP, Hawaii, and Doe
injunctions.

Dated: January 4, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
HASHIM M. MOOPPAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JESSIE K. LIU
United States Attorney
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
-4-

 Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 137 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 5

/s/ Daniel Schwei
DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar)
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050)
KEVIN SNELL (N.Y. Bar)
JOSEPH C. DUGAN (Ohio Bar No. 0093997)
Senior Trial Counsel / Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20530
Tel: (202) 305-8693
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: daniel.s.schwei@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

-5-