You are on page 1of 4

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92

Filed 11/08/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2265

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

STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division AUGUST E. FLENTJE Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General DAVID J. KLINE Director, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director JESI J. CARLSON Senior Litigation Counsel TIMOTHY M. BELSAN (KS 24112) Trial Attorney P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 532-4596 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARTIN ARANAS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, ) Department of Homeland Security, ) et al., ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ ) No. 8:12-cv-1137-CBM (AJWx) DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS

Hearing Date: November 26, 2012 Time: 11:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92

Filed 11/08/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2266

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
1

This Court should stay discovery proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs opposition does not call into question Magistrate Judge Wistrichs conclusion in his October 25, 2012 Order that a stay of discovery may be warranted in light of the characteristics and potentially dispositive nature of the pending motions. See Dkt. No. 66. Plaintiffs concede that they do[] not seek information relating to the pending motions to dismiss, see Pls. Opp. to Defs. Mot. to Stay Discovery Proceedings (Pls. Opposition), Dkt. No. 81 at 7, and that resolution of the pending motions to dismiss does not turn on any contested factual matter. See id. at 4. Plaintiffs also do not dispute that resolution of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups motion to dismiss, either independently or in combination with Defendants partial motion to dismiss, has the potential to resolve the entire case. See generally id. Under these circumstances, a stay of discovery until such motions have been resolved furthers the interests of judicial economy and preservation of government resources. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that when dispositive motions are pending, a stay furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and litigants). Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention that discovery may be necessary for resolution of their motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction, see Pls. Opposition at 7, Judge Wistrich previously found that in the circumstances it seems unlikely that [P]laintiffs actually need discovery prior to the November 20, 2012 hearing.1 See Dkt. No. 66 (emphasis added). Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves note in their opposition that: If the Court agrees with defendants that whether plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm is at this point a legal question, and that defendants have not challenge[d] any of Plaintiffs factual allegations but rather accepted them as true for purposes of their opposition[s] to plaintiffs motions, Dkt. No. 68-1 at 7, then discovery may not be required before the Court rules on plaintiffs motions for class
On November 7, 2012, Defendants filed an ex parte application to postpone this hearing by at least two weeks until December 4, 2012, or until such date thereafter that this Court deems appropriate. See Dkt. No. 90. 1

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92

Filed 11/08/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2267

1 2

certification and a preliminary injunction. Pls. Opposition at 9 n.5 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Defendants

expressly accepted Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of their oppositions to


4

Plaintiffs motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction. See Defs.
5

Opp. to Pls. Mot. for Class Certification, Dkt. No. 35, at 3 n.3; Defs. Opp. to Pls.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Dkt. No. 39, at 2 n.1. Accordingly, and as explained more fully in Defendants motion, see Dkt. No. 68-1 at 7-8, whether Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm is indeed, at this point, a purely legal question. Thus, discovery is not needed for this Court to rule on Plaintiffs motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction. Finally, as this Court and the parties are aware, the Supreme Court is set to consider eight petitions for a writ of certiorari or certiorari before judgment addressing the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMAthe primary question presented in the present litigation2at its conference scheduled for November 20, 2012. See Dkt. No. 90. If the Supreme Court grants one or more of the pending petitions, the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court in 2013. Permitting discovery in this case while cases presenting the very same question are pending before the Supreme Court could result in a waste of scarce judicial and governmental resources, and thus, a stay of discovery proceedings may be appropriate. See generally Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Calif., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that it would waste judicial resources and be burdensome upon the parties to permit discovery and take evidence on the merits of the case at the same time an arbitrator is going through a substantially parallel process). Accordingly, this Court should grant Defendants motion for a stay of discovery proceedings for the reasons stated therein.

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves concede that DOMA 3s constitutionality is the only question before this Court. See Dkt. No. 87 at 5 (emphasis in original). 2

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92

Filed 11/08/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2268

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

DATED: November 8, 2012

Respectfully submitted, STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division AUGUST E. FLENTJE Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General DAVID J. KLINE Director, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director JESI J. CARLSON Senior Litigation Counsel s/ Timothy M. Belsan TIMOTHY M. BELSAN Trial Attorney District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Attorneys for Defendants

You might also like