United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 205

JOINT STATUS REPORT by Xavier Becerra, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr, State of California. (Chuang, Christine)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON MICHAEL NEWMAN Senior Assistant Attorneys General SATOSHI YANAI ANTHONY HAKL Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHRISTINE CHUANG CHEROKEE DM MELTON MAUREEN ONYEAGBAKO LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 272271 300 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6404 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: Lee.Sherman@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 14 15 16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Plaintiff, 18 JOINT STATUS REPORT v. 19 20 21 22 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez Action Filed: March 6, 2018 GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California, in his official capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity, Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Status Report (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 As requested by the Court (ECF No. 200), the parties respectfully submit this joint status 2 report to address how the remainder of the case should proceed, although the parties disagree as 3 to whether the court should stay proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal of this 4 Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction 5 and whether the Court should determine whether such a stay is appropriate before the parties 6 propose dates for discovery cut-off, expert witness disclosure, filing of dispositive motions, 7 pretrial conference, and trial. 8 I. 9 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION The United States proposes that the parties promptly submit briefing regarding a stay of 10 proceedings in this case, with the United States’ motion to be filed next week. Appellate 11 proceedings are moving promptly, with briefing scheduled to be completed by November 2018. 12 The United States believes that a stay is appropriate in this case, as it will conserve judicial 13 resources, provide for consistency in rulings between the Ninth Circuit and this Court, and serve 14 the public interest by avoiding the duplication of resources. As it stands, only two discrete 15 portions of AB 450 are currently before this Court. The other portion is before the Ninth Circuit, 16 and the remaining claims were dismissed. Any discovery would thus be limited to a portion of 17 AB 450, has a substantial potential to be piecemeal depending on how the Ninth Circuit resolves 18 the appeal by the United States, and would be subject to revision in consideration of the Ninth 19 Circuit’s decision. There is good reason to believe that discovery concerning the two AB 450 20 provisions currently enjoined—Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7285.1 & 7285.2 and Cal. Lab. Code 21 § 1019.2(a) & (b)—would interrelate with discovery concerning AB 450’s other provision, Cal. 22 Lab. Code § 90.2, as AB 450 is a unified whole. Furthermore, this Court would benefit from the 23 Ninth Circuit’s guidance on the purely legal issues that are before it, and the Ninth Circuit 24 decision will greatly shape the breadth and scope of litigation going forward, including the scope 25 of discovery, if any. Indeed, Defendants request burdensome discovery that may be rendered 26 unnecessary or require substantial modification in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. As such, 27 this Court should not set a schedule in this case until it has ruled on a motion to stay proceedings. 28 1 Joint Status Report (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Defendants will not be harmed by a stay because all the laws at issue in this case remain in 2 force pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal except for the two provisions of AB 450 for 3 which this Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Defendants did not appeal that portion of 4 the Court’s decision, demonstrating their accession to that injunction until the completion of trial. 5 The lengthy discovery windows that Defendants propose also demonstrate that Defendants will 6 not be prejudiced by a stay. 7 Accordingly, the United States respectfully proposes that this Court permit briefing on a 8 motion for a stay and not set case management deadlines in this case until after the Court has 9 ruled on that motion. Once the Court has ruled on that motion, parties should confer to set a 10 schedule for all case deadlines going forward. The United States proposes a briefing schedule on 11 a motion to stay as follows: 12 • Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings: 9/11/18 13 • Defendants’ opposition, if any: 9/18/18 14 • Plaintiff’s reply, if any: 9/25/18 15 16 II. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION Pursuant to the Court’s Order Re: State of California’s Motion to Dismiss dated July 9, 17 2018 (ECF No. 197), the remaining claims in this lawsuit relate to California Government Code 18 Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2, and California Labor Code Section 1019.2, added by Assembly Bill 19 (AB) 450. The parties met and conferred and do not agree on how the case should proceed. 20 The State of California does not agree a stay of proceedings is appropriate. As a result of 21 this action brought by the United States, California is suffering harm while part of AB 450 is 22 preliminarily enjoined. California believes that a more developed record will demonstrate that 23 those provisions are neither preempted nor invalid under the doctrine of intergovernmental 24 immunity. In addition, the issues on appeal do not involve the provisions of AB 450 that remain 25 at issue in this case and there is virtually no overlap anticipated with respect to discovery relating 26 to the AB 450 provisions that are preliminarily enjoined and the provision of AB 450 that is the 27 subject of the United States’ appeal. Thus, California is prepared to litigate the merits of the case 28 and would like to set a schedule for initial disclosures, discovery cut-off, expert witness 2 Joint Status Report (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 disclosures, filing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference, and trial without further delay. To 2 the extent the United States intends to move for a stay of proceedings pending final resolution of 3 its appeal, California is willing to accommodate a briefing schedule for such a motion and 4 provide time for the Court to consider the United States’ request. 1 California does not believe, 5 however, that the United States’ motion should impact the setting of case management deadlines 6 at this juncture and requests that the Court also set the following schedule for the litigation, which 7 provides ample time for briefing and disposition of the United States’ motion, such that if the 8 United States’ motion for a stay is denied, the parties can continue to move forward to a 9 determination on the merits of this case without delay: 10 • November 2, 2018: Deadline for initial disclosures 11 • March 29, 2019: Deadline for expert witness disclosures 12 • April 26, 2019: Deadline for supplemental and rebuttal expert disclosures 13 • June 7, 2019: Discovery completion date 14 • June 28, 2019: Plaintiff files dispositive motion 15 • July 26, 2019: Defendants file cross-motion and opposition to motion 16 • August 6, 2019: Plaintiff files opposition to cross-motion and reply in support of motion 17 • August 13, 2019: Defendants file reply in support of cross-motion 18 • August 20, 2019 or another date convenient to the Court: Hearing on both motions • October 7, 2019: Pretrial Conference • November 18, 2019 or another date convenient to the Court: Court trial 19 20 21 22 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 1 To the extent that the United States advances arguments relating to the merits of its stay motion in this report, California will present further responsive arguments in its briefing of the motion. 3 Joint Status Report (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dated: September 4, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MCGREGOR SCOTT United States Attorney AUGUST FLENTJE Special Counsel EREZ REUVENI Assistant Director DAVID SHELLEDY Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney LAUREN C. BINGHAM JOSEPH A. DARROW FRANCESCA GENOVA JOSHUA S. PRESS XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON MICHAEL NEWMAN Senior Assistant Attorneys General SATOSHI YANAI ANTHONY HAKL Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHEROKEE DM MELTON MAUREEN ONYEAGBAKO LEE SHERMAN 9 10 11 /s/Christine Chuang Christine Chuang Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for the State of California /s/Francesca Genova Francesca Genova Trial Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Joint Status Report (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?