Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. Trump

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

May 30, 2017

JOHN DOE, et at. Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et at, Defendants.

          Noted for Consideration: May 26, 2017

          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Lynn Lincoln Sarko Tana Lin Amy Williams-Perry Derek W. Loeser Alison S. Gafmey Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569 Tana Lin, WSBA# 35271 Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA #28711 Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274 Alison S. Gafmey, WSBA #45565 Laurie B. Ashton Laurie B. Ashton Alison Chase Alison Chase Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cooperating Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union Of Washington Foundation

          CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch Michelle R. Bennett MICHELLE R. BENNETT Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Attorneys for Defendants

          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION Emily Chiang La Rond Baker Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517 La Rond Baker WSBA # 43610 Attorney for Plaintiffs

          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

          JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge

         May 26, 2017 Pursuant to the Court's May 22, 2017, Order to Show Cause, Dkt. # 32, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. Plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 13, 780, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" ("E02"). See 82 Fed. Reg. 13, 209 (Mar.. 6, 2017). Plaintiffs have filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief contesting the legality of E02, Dkt, # 30, as well as a Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. #19. Pursuant to earlier Stipulations and Orders, Defendants' response to the Second Amended Complaint is currently due on June 1, 2017 and their response to Plaintiffs' class certification motion is currently due fourteen days after the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawai 'i v. Trump, No. 17-50 (D. Haw.). See Diet. #s 18, 29.

         2. On May 17, 2017, and May 22, 2017, respectively, the Court entered orders staying the proceedings in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-141JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 189, and AH v. Trump, No. 17-135JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt, # 95, pending resolution of the appeal in Hawai'iv, Trump (Hawai 7), No. 17-15589 (9th Cir.). The Court further ordered the parties to file a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii so that the Court could evaluate the continued appropriateness of the stay at that time. The Court also noted that any party may move to lift the stay should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted.

         3. In light of the Court's orders staying the proceedings in Washington and Ali, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that a similar stay is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

a. Proceedings in this case (including Defendants' deadlines to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and class certification motion) shall be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.
b. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii so that the Court may evaluate the continued appropriateness of a stay at that time.
c. Should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted, any party may move to lift the stay, For example, if the Ninth Circuit lifts or narrows the preliminary injunction in Hawaii, Plaintiffs may seek to lift the stay for the purpose of filing a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. [1]
d. As the Court noted in Washington, Diet. # 189 at 8-9, Plaintiffs may send preservation letters to third parties to notify them of the litigation and request that they preserve any potentially relevant evidence. If Plaintiffs do not believe that sending such letters will resolve the issue of third-party evidentiary preservation, Plaintiffs may move for a limited modification of the stay order to allow Plaintiffs to issue subpoenas to third parties. If any such motion is granted, the Court would then stay any required production under or response to the subpoenas until such time as the stay is fully lifted.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.