Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 11 1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, v. 11 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:18-cv-1115-RSL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING PUBLICATION OF FINAL AGENCY RULEMAKING NOTED FOR: Dec. 21, 20181 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Consistent with Local Civil Rule 7(l), the parties have agreed to note this motion for December 21, 2018, and to brief this motion on the same schedule as that set out for Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion on the adequacy of the administrative record. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ response to this motion will be due on or before December 6, 2018, and the Federal Defendants’ reply will be due on or before December 20, 2018. See ECF No. 110 at 9; ECF No. 115. FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 2 of 11 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 4 The Federal Defendants respectfully request a four-month stay of all proceedings in this litigation to allow the Department of State to finalize a rulemaking that will directly bear on the issues of this case. In light of the preliminary injunction entered by the Court—which neither 5 the Federal Defendants nor the Private Defendants have appealed to the Ninth Circuit— 6 Plaintiffs have no basis to assert undue hardship from the brief stay. Moreover, a relatively 7 brief stay of proceedings during the finalization of the Department of State’s rulemaking will 8 conserve the resources of both the Court and the parties and allow for more efficient judicial 9 proceedings. Denying a stay of proceeding before the Department of State’s rulemaking is 10 complete, on the other hand, could lead to premature review of motions regarding the 11 administrative record and summary judgment, inviting the possible prolongation of this 12 litigation, whether in this Court or in any potential appeal. The Court should therefore grant the 13 Federal Defendants’ motion.2 BACKGROUND 14 This Court is familiar with the underlying facts that gave rise to this litigation, as well 15 16 as its procedural history. For purposes of this motion, the Federal Defendants present a 17 summary of relevant events. Reflecting nearly a decade of efforts to carry out a reform of export regulations and 18 19 pursuant to a “comprehensive review” of the U.S. export control system, the Government has 20 undertaken an Export Control Reform Initiative (“ECRI”) that was proposed in April 2010,3 21 and facilitated by Executive Order No. 13,637, 78 Fed. Reg. 16,129 (Mar. 8, 2013). By 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 January 20, 2017, this export reform process had been completed for U.S. Munitions List (“USML”) categories IV through XX. On May 24, 2018, the Departments of State and 2 The Federal Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs and the Private Defendants on November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs oppose the relief requested in this motion. The Private Defendants do not agree to the preliminary injunction’s continuation during a stay or otherwise; apart from that, the Private Defendants would agree to stay all other proceedings, including discovery. 3 See Fact Sheet on the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative (Apr. 20, 2010), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/factsheet-presidents-export-controlreform-initiative FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 1 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 Commerce each issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”), in which the Government proposed amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) “to revise Categories I (firearms, close assault weapons and combat shotguns), II (guns and armament) and III (ammunition and ordnance) of the [USML] to describe more precisely the articles 5 warranting export and temporary import control on the USML.” 83 Fed. Reg. 24,198, 24,198 6 (May 24, 2018); see also 83 Fed. Reg. 24,166 (May 24, 2018). Although the Department of 7 State “has long taken the position that controlling the temporary import and export of defense 8 articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. government, and that rules 9 implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),” Decl. of Sarah J. Heidema, ECF No. 64-1, ¶ 18 11 (citing 22 C.F.R § 128.1), the Government accepted public comments on the NPRMs until July 12 9, 2018, 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,198. The Department of State “received more than 3,500 13 comments in response to the NPRM, including comments related to 3D-printed firearms.” 14 Heidema Decl. ¶ 23. If the NPRM is finalized as contemplated, the items removed from the 15 USML would no longer be subject to the ITAR’s authorization requirements, i.e., no license 16 from the Department of State would be required for their export. See Heidema Decl. ¶ 21 17 (citation omitted); see generally 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,198. 18 Shortly before the public comment period closed, the Government entered into a 19 settlement agreement in the matter of Defense Distributed v. Department of State, No. 15-cv- 20 50759 (W.D. Tex.). See Heidema Decl. ¶ 21; see also Settlement Agreement, attached as 21 Exhibit A to Heidema Decl., ECF No. 64-1. Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement in 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defense Distributed, the Government agreed in part to announce, on or before July 27, 2018, “a temporary modification, consistent with the . . . (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. § 126.2, of USML Category I to exclude the technical data that is the subject of the Action.” Settlement Agreement at 1-2. Additionally, the Government agreed to issue “a letter to Plaintiffs [in Defense Distributed] on or before July 27, 2018, signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls, advising that the Published Files, Ghost Gunner Files, and CAD Files are approved for public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any form and are exempt from the export licensing FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 2 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 requirements of the ITAR because they satisfy the criteria of 22 C.F.R. § 125.4(b)(13). . . .” Id. at 2. The Government complied with its settlement obligations. Heidema Decl. ¶¶ 27, 29. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiffs—a coalition of States and the District of Columbia—filed the instant action against, inter alia, the Department of State, the Secretary of State, DDTC, and Defense Distributed. Compl. for Decl. & Inj. Relief, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs challenge not the Government’s decision to enter into a settlement agreement, but rather the actions taken pursuant to that agreement—namely the Federal Defendants’ announcement of the temporary 8 modification and issuance of a letter to Plaintiffs in Defense Distributed—alleging that those 9 actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and Tenth Amendment. First Am. Compl. for 10 11 Decl. & Inj. Relief, ECF No. 29 (“Am. Compl.”), ¶¶ 218-47; see also Joint Status Report & Discovery Plan, ECF No. 110, at 2 (“The Plaintiff States challenge certain regulatory actions 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, and also assert a claim under the Tenth Amendment based on the same facts.”); Pls.’ Opp. to Private Defs.’ Mot. for Judgement on the Pleadings, ECF No. 119, at 13 (“This case is a discrete procedural challenge to the July 27, 2018 Temporary Modification and Letter that did not become ripe until after the Texas case had settled.”); Tr. of Aug. 21 Oral Argument at 46-47 (“We’re not attacking the settlement agreement itself.”). On July 30, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order against Defendants, Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. No. 2, which the Court granted on July 31, 2018, ECF. No. 23, and converted to a preliminary injunction on August 27, 2018, ECF No. 95. Pursuant to the preliminary injunction issued by the Court, the 22 Government is enjoined from “implementing or enforcing the ‘Temporary Modification of 23 Category I of the United States Munitions List’ and the letter to Cody R. Wilson, Defense 24 Distributed, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued by the U.S. Department of State on 25 July 27, 2018,” and the Federal Defendants must “preserve the status quo ex ante as if the 26 modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued until further order of the 27 Court.” Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 95, at 25. Neither the Federal Defendants nor the Private 28 Defendants have filed a notice of appeal regarding the preliminary injunction. FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 3 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 On November 7, 2018, the Departments of State and Commerce provided final rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) within the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for regulatory review, as required by Executive Order 12,866. See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=128623 (noting status of Department of 5 State rule); https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=128620 (noting status of 6 Department of Commerce rule). Once OIRA has completed its review of the rules, the 7 Department of State will provide its rule to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 8 Representatives and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for a 30-day informal review. 9 In the event the final rule effectuates a removal of items from the ITAR, prior to publication, 10 the Department of State will provide these Committees formal 30-day notice in accordance 11 with section 38(f) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. § 2778(f). Although many internal and external 12 factors may affect the timeline, the Departments of State and Commerce currently anticipate 13 publishing final rules as early as February 2019, with an effective date likely 45 days thereafter. 14 ARGUMENT 15 The Supreme Court has held that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 16 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 17 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American 18 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 19 specifically set forth a procedure for seeking a limited stay, Rule 1 states that the purpose of the 20 Federal Rules is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To advance the purposes “mandated by Rule 1,” a district court should 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consider a motion to stay particularly when doing so will “maximize the effective utilization of judicial resources.” See 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1360 (3d ed. 2006). Among the “competing interests” for the Court to consider in deciding whether to grant a stay are “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 4 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 6 of 11 1 2 3 law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., Knapp v. Reid, No. 15-cv-1769, 2016 WL 561734, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2016) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 4 (9th Cir. 1962)). Further, the Ninth Circuit has long recognized that a district court “may, with 5 propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a 6 stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the 7 case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (Kennedy, J.); 8 see also, e.g., Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 9 1983) (concluding district court did not abuse its discretion by staying case pending the results 10 of a related arbitration). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized the propriety of a 11 stay “pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” when, as here, 12 the “separate proceedings are . . . administrative . . . in character.” Levya, 593 F.2d at 863-64. 13 Just such separate and independent proceedings that “bear upon the case” are underway at the 14 administrative level here. Indeed, depending upon the substance of the final rules, it is possible 15 that the issuance of the rules may render this proceeding moot. In light of the ongoing 16 administrative proceedings, and because the other conditions necessary to issue a stay are 17 satisfied, a four-month stay should be granted. 18 A. Administrative Proceedings That Bear Upon This Case Are Underway 19 As explained above, the Department of State is preparing a final rule that directly 20 implicates the actions taken by the Federal Defendants pursuant to their settlement obligations 21 in Defense Distributed. See Heidema Decl. ¶ 21; see also Settlement Agreement. Specifically, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the final rule pertains to the Government’s consideration of whether to remove from Category I of the USML certain non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, as well as their components, parts, accessories, attachments, and related technical data. See Heidema Decl. ¶ 21; see also 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,198. Such technical data includes that at issue in Defense Distributed. See generally Settlement Agreement. Regardless of the policy decision ultimately reflected in the final rule, it is likely to affect the relief requested here by Plaintiffs, which includes a request for declaratory and injunctive relief related to the temporary modification announcement and FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 5 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 7 of 11 1 2 3 4 letter to the Defense Distributed plaintiffs. Am. Compl., Prayer for Relief, at 73-74. If the rule is finalized as proposed, the Department of State will provide notice to Congress, and the rule will overtake the announcement and letter as a basis for the Private Defendants to publish the technical data at issue in Defense Distributed, see Heidema Decl. ¶ 21, rendering the case moot. 5 See Tillett v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 586 F. App’x 394 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding case is moot 6 where “the district court could no longer provide any meaningful relief” (citing Gator.com 7 Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Prelim. Inj. at 13 8 (finding Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the basis of their APA because “the temporary 9 modification of the USML to allow immediate publication of the previously regulated CAD 10 files constitutes the removal of one or more items from the USML without the required 11 Congressional notice”). Similarly, if the final rule does not effectuate a transfer of jurisdiction, 12 the final rule may nevertheless alter or clarify the issues before the Court. Indeed, Plaintiffs 13 themselves have acknowledged the role that the final rule may play in this litigation: “The 14 Plaintiff States believe that in addition to the administrative record regarding the agency actions 15 challenged in their Amended Complaint, the administrative record related to any final rule that 16 will affect the regulation of the Subject Files may also become relevant to this case.” Joint 17 Status Report at 4. 18 Thus the most efficient course is to suspend litigation proceedings for a limited, four- 19 month period, until the rulemaking has concluded, at which point the litigation can resume with 20 the full benefit of the agencies’ consideration of an issue likely to be a focus of dispositive 21 motion practice. So that the Court remains apprised of the Federal Defendants’ efforts, the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal Defendants are willing to submit periodic reports to the Court advising of the status of the final rule while the rulemaking process is underway. Further, if the Federal Defendants complete the rulemaking earlier than anticipated, they will move the Court at that time to lift the stay and recommence litigation proceedings. B. Granting A Stay Would Not Lead To Any Potential For Harm Granting the requested stay would sustain the status quo for a relatively brief period, and would not lead to any “possible damage,” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110, whether to Plaintiffs FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 6 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 8 of 11 1 2 3 4 or other entities not party to this litigation. A stay would instead merely preserve the current posture, leaving in place the preliminary injunction entered by the Court. That injunction enjoins the Government from “implementing or enforcing the ‘Temporary Modification of Category I of the United States Munitions List’ and the letter to Cody R. Wilson, Defense 5 Distributed, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued by the U.S. Department of State on 6 July 27, 2018,” and further requires the Federal Defendants to “preserve the status quo ex ante 7 as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued until further order of 8 the Court.” Prelim. Inj. at 25. That is, the Federal Defendants have been enjoined from 9 implementing the precise actions that are the subject of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, and 10 11 Plaintiffs suffer no prejudice from maintaining an injunction that burdens only the Defendants. Moreover, the Federal Defendants note that neither they nor the Private Defendants 12 have appealed the Court’s preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, that 13 injunction will remain in place until final judgment, obviating the need for immediate 14 resolution of motions pertaining to either the administrative record or to summary judgment. 15 See Case Management Order, ECF No. 115, at 2 (setting deadline for “motions related to the 16 adequacy of the administrative record or discovery disputes” for November 15, 2018, with 17 briefing on summary judgment to begin February 15, 2019). 18 Indeed, rather than harming any party, granting a stay would benefit all parties because 19 it would allow them to proceed to dispositive briefing after the Department of State has 20 finalized its rulemaking, and after the Federal Defendants are in position to describe the 21 outcome of this rulemaking to the Court if necessary. Proceeding to decide motions while the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rulemaking is underway, but not yet complete, would raise the possibility of duplicative motion practice and increased costs were that rulemaking to necessitate subsequent litigation. C. The Orderly Course Of Litigation Favors A Stay Absent a stay, motion practice would commence in relatively short order and would be based on the present administrative record, even while the Department of State is proceeding with its rulemaking efforts that directly bear on the issues here. Depending on when the rule is published and takes effect, the outcome of that rulemaking may occur while the parties are FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 7 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 9 of 11 1 2 briefing motions on the completeness of the current record or for summary judgment or, potentially, following a ruling by the Court. To the extent the Department of State’s 3 rulemaking is ultimately material to the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case, any dispute 4 over the Federal Defendants’ actions should thus be heard after that rule is published. 5 Substantial inconvenience and inefficiency would otherwise result, with the prospect of both 6 the Court and parties unnecessarily expending resources litigating a case that will be overtaken 7 by events. This potential can be readily avoided by granting a four-month stay, and allowing 8 the litigation to recommence in orderly fashion thereafter. See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. 9 Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1094, 1096 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (staying case in light 10 of pending agency rulemaking “that may affect portions of Plaintiff’s claims” because failure to 11 do so would “waste party and judicial resources”). 12 13 14 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay should be granted and all proceedings in this case should be stayed for a four-month period. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 8 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dated: November 15, 2018 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General ANNETTE L. HAYES Acting United States Attorney KERRY KEEFE Civil Chief 7 8 9 10 11 JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch 17 /s/ Stuart J. Robinson STUART J. ROBINSON STEVEN A. MYERS Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 436-6635 (telephone) (415) 436-6632 (facsimile) stuart.j.robinson@usdoj.gov 18 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 9 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131 Filed 11/15/18 Page 11 of 11 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I hereby certify that on November 15, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing motion using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of 4 record. 5 6 Dated: November 15, 2018 7 /s/ Stuart J. Robinson Stuart J. Robinson 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 10 State of Washington, et al. v. Dep’t of State, et al., 2:18-cv-1115-RSL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 436-6635 Case 2:18-cv-01115-RSL Document 131-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, v. 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:18-cv-1115-RSL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING PUBLICATION OF FINAL AGENCY RULEMAKING NOTED FOR: Dec. 21, 2018 12 [PROPOSED] ORDER 13 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Publication of Final Agency Rulemaking. Upon consideration of the Federal Defendants’ motion and of all materials submitted in relation thereto, it is hereby 16 ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. It is further 17 ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED for four months. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Date:_________________________ ______________________________ ROBERT S. LASNIK United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 1