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.

Karnoski v. Trump

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 16, 2019

RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants.

          NEWMAN DU WORS LLP Andrew E. Carmichael, Gerald Brinton Lucas, Joshua E. Gardner, Ashley Cheung Counsel for Defendants

          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Derek A. Newman, Jason B. Sykes, LAMDBA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Tara Borelli, Camilla B. Taylor (admitted pro hac vice) Peter C. Renn (admitted pro hac vice) Sasha Buchert (admitted pro hac vice) Kara Ingelhart (admitted pro hac vice) Carl Charles (admitted pro hac vice) Paul D. Castillo (admitted pro hac vice) OUTSERVE-SLDN, INC. N/K/A MODERN MILITARY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Peter Perkowski (admitted pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP James F. Hurst, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) Steve Patton (admitted pro hac vice) Jordan M. Heinz (admitted pro hac vice) Vanessa Barsanti (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel I. Siegfried (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph B. Tyson (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Plaintiffs

          OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL La Rond Baker, Colleen M. Melody, Chalia I. Stallings-Ala'ilima, Assistant Attorneys General Civil Rights Unit Attorney General's Office Counsel for Intervenor-Plaintiff State of Washington

          JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE CASE SCHEDULE

          Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge.

         Plaintiffs Ryan Karnoski, Cathrine Schmid, D.L., formerly known as K.G., by his next friend and mother, Laura Garza, Lindsey Muller, Terece Lewis, Phillip Stephens, Megan Winters, Jane Doe, Human Rights Campaign, Gender Justice League, and American Military Partner Association n/k/a Modern Military Association of America (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Washington; and Defendants Donald J. Trump, the United States of America, Mark Esper, and the United States Department of Defense (collectively, “Defendants”), stipulate and move the Court as follows:

         WHEREAS, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation on September 28, 2018, vacating the deadlines for filing and noting discovery motions, completing discovery, and filing dispositive motions, and further ordered the Parties to submit proposed revisions to the case schedule within 21 days after the Ninth Circuit ruled on the Mandamus Petition. (Dkt. No. 319.) All other deadlines in the case schedule remained unchanged. (Id.)

         WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019 the Parties further agreed that revisions to the case schedule were warranted because the Ninth Circuit still had not ruled on the pending Mandamus Petition-including vacating the March 4, 2019 motions in limine deadline, the March 27, 2019 pretrial order deadline, the March 27, 2019 proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law deadline, the March 29, 2019 pretrial conference, and the April 8, 2019 trial date. (Dkt. No. 330.)

         WHEREAS, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation on February 20, 2019 and further ordered the Parties to submit proposed revisions to the case schedule within 21 days after the Ninth Circuit ruled on the Mandamus Petition. (Dkt. No. 331.)

         WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit issued its order on the Mandamus Petition on June 14, 2019. (Dkt. No. 338.)

         WHEREAS, the Parties have indicated that they will not file a petition for panel rehearing, a petition for rehearing en banc, or a petition for a writ of certiorari.

         WHEREAS, the Parties disagree on the order in which the Court should resolve the Parties' discovery disputes and Defendants' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The Parties' respective positions are set forth below:

         • Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor's Position:

         Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor believe that the Court should resolve the Parties' dispute over Defendants' claims of privilege (and subsequent withholding of documents) first. The Ninth Circuit specified that “Plaintiffs on remand may present additional evidence” beyond “the current record” in support of the preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 338 at 44.) The Ninth Circuit also “vacate[d] the district court's discovery order, so that the district court may reconsider Plaintiffs' discovery requests, ” and it set forth guidance for resolution of privilege disputes. (Dkt. No. 338 at 56.) In order for the Plaintiffs to “present additional evidence”, as contemplated by the Ninth Circuit, the discovery disputes must be resolved. And this delay in considering Defendants' dissolution motion does no harm to Defendants because the preliminary injunction has been stayed “through the district court's further consideration of the motion to dissolve, ” and if that motion is denied, “throughout [the Ninth Circuit's] disposition of any appeal by the Government” (Dkt. No. 338 at 56). Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor are not requesting an “indefinite amount of time” to oppose Defendants' motion as Defendants suggest below, and instead only request that the threshold privilege issues be addressed first since such discovery is very likely to inform the Court's consideration of Defendants' motion.

         • 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.