Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 66 Filed 06/13/19 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Michael T. Liburdi (#021894) Dominic E. Draye (#033012) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: 602.445.8000 Facsimile: 602.445.8100 Email: liburdim@gtlaw.com drayed@gtlaw.com Brett W. Johnson (#021527) Colin P. Ahler (#023879) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Telephone: 602.382.6000 Facsimile: 602.382.6070 E-Mail: bwjohnson@swlaw.com cahler@swlaw.com Anni L. Foster (#023643) General Counsel Office of Arizona Governor Douglas A. Ducey 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: 602.542.4331 E-Mail: afoster@az.gov Attorneys for Defendant Doug Ducey UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 18 19 20 William Price Tedards, Jr.; Monica Wnuk; Barry Hess; Lawrence Lilien; and Ross Trumble, 21 Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona, in his official capacity, and Jon Kyl, Senator of Arizona, in his official capacity, 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-4241-PHX-DJH DEFENDANT DOUG DUCEY’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE Assigned to Hon. Diane J. Humetewa Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 66 Filed 06/13/19 Page 2 of 4 1 Sixty days have passed since this Court took Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary 2 injunction under advisement. That passage of time amounts to exactly one-third of the 3 time specified in Local Rule 7.2(n) for inquiring as to the status of a case. L.R. Civ. 4 7.2(n). Further disregarding the Rule, Plaintiffs initially made their request in the form 5 of an ex parte letter to the Court rather than consulting Defendants’ counsel and making 6 a motion “according to the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Id. This 7 ex parte approach was especially inappropriate because Rule 7.2(n) specifies that “the 8 attorneys of record in the case” shall make the motion, suggesting coordination among 9 counsel for all parties. LAW OFFICES G REENBERG T RAURIG 2375 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 (602) 445-8000 10 Id. (emphasis added). Beyond the anomalous procedure, however, Plaintiffs’ effort to force an early decision is meritless. 11 Plaintiffs’ argument distills to a single point: this case is important. This fact 12 neither distinguishes this case from others pending before the Court nor points to the 13 outcome Plaintiffs seek. The Local Rules presumably select an inquiry deadline of 180 14 days for a reason. The Court is busy, and motions inquiring as to the status of pending 15 matters only add work to an already crowded docket. Plaintiffs justify their disregard 16 for the Rules by observing that this case “‘raises questions of national importance.’” 17 Mot. 2 (quoting Hamamoto v. Ige, 881 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2018)). But cases of 18 national importance are odd candidates for haste. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, a 19 case implicating the composition of the United States Senate is one in which the Court 20 should take all care to reach a correct decision that will be affirmed on appeal. 21 To the extent Plaintiffs’ citation to Ninth Circuit precedent and its discussion of 22 expedited appeals is intended to suggest that this Court is obliged to act quickly, that is 23 mistaken. 24 procedure; the procedures in this Court are governed by the Local Rules, which specify 25 180 days before a status inquiry is inappropriate. 26 The appellate court can set whatever procedures it likes for appellate Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s allusion in Hamamoto to a 47-day whirlwind from 27 district court through en banc appeal is inapt. 28 challenge to voting procedures that needed to be resolved before election day arrived. 1 That case involved a pre-election Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 66 Filed 06/13/19 Page 3 of 4 1 Sw. Voter Educ. Proj. v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2003). The circumstances here 2 are different because the appointment has already occurred, and the next election for 3 U.S. Senate is 509 days away. 4 5 status conference. 6 argument would be inappropriate, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Like the instant motion, 7 it would only further delay the Court’s work on this admittedly important case. 8 The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Status Conference. 9 10 2375 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 (602) 445-8000 11 LAW OFFICES G REENBERG T RAURIG Plaintiffs are silent on any benefit they anticipate coming from an additional 12 13 14 15 The Court has already heard the parties’ arguments. Further DATED this 13th day of June, 2019. By:/s/ Dominic E. Draye Michael T. Liburdi Dominic E. Draye GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Brett W. Johnson Colin P. Ahler SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 16 17 18 19 22 Anni L. Foster General Counsel Office of Arizona Governor Douglas A. Ducey 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 23 Attorneys for Defendant Doug Ducey 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 66 Filed 06/13/19 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2  3 4 Michael Kielsky Udall Shumway PLC 1138 N Alma School Rd., Ste. 101 Mesa, AZ 85201-6695 480-461-5309 Fax: 480-833-9392 Email: mk@udallshumway.com 5 6 7 8 Michael P Persoon Thomas H. Geoghegan Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan Limited 77 W Washington St., Ste. 711 Chicago, IL 60602 312-372-2511 Fax: 312-372-7391 Email: mpersoon@dsgchicago.com Email: mschorsch@dsgchicago.com Email: tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com 9 10 LAW OFFICES G REENBERG T RAURIG 2375 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 (602) 445-8000 11 12 13 14 15 16 I hereby certify that on June 13, 2019 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:  I hereby certify that on June 13, 2019 I served the attached document by United States First Class Mail upon the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: 17 18 19 By: /s/ Carolyn Smith Employee, Greenberg Traurig, LLP 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3