Martins v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 22

ORDER regarding 20 Defendants' motions for partial judgment on the pleadings, for dismissal of claims against certain federal defendants, and to quash discovery request. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/19/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
JEFFERY MARTINS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

15
Defendants.

No. C 13-00591 LB
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS, DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST
CERTAIN FEDERAL DEFENDANTS,
AND TO QUASH DISCOVERY
REQUEST

16
[Re: ECF No. 20]
17
18

_____________________________________/
At the April 18, 2013 Initial Case Management Conference, Plaintiff informed the court of his

19

desire to file a motion for a preliminary injunction and to have it heard by the court relatively soon.

20

See 4/18/2013 Minute Order, ECF No. 13. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and to

21

submit a briefing schedule and hearing date for it. See id. On April 26, 2013, the parties filed a

22

stipulation that included the briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and

23

set it for hearing on July 3, 2013, Stipulation, ECF No. 14, and the court approved it the same day,

24

4/26/2013 Order, ECF No. 15. The stipulation and the court order contemplated only the filing and

25

hearing of a motion for preliminary hearing. See Stipulation, ECF No. 14; 4/26/2013 Order, ECF

26

No. 15.

27
28

Pursuant to the 4/26/2013 Order, Plaintiff filed his motion for a preliminary injunction on May
29, 2013. Motion, ECF No. 17. The Government filed its opposition to the motion on June 12,

C 13-00591 LB
ORDER

1

2013, also pursuant to the 4/26/2013 Order. Opposition, ECF No. 20. In the same brief, the

2

Government also moved(1) for partial judgment on the pleadings, (2) for dismissal of claims against

3

certain federal defendants, and (3) to quash a discovery request. See id.

4

These motions were not contemplated by the court’s 4/26/2013 Order, nor were they discussed

5

with the court at the April 26, 2013 Initial Case Management Conference, when the court agreed to

6

hear Plaintiff’s motion. See 4/18/2013 Minute Order, ECF No. 13. Whatever the merits of these

7

motions, the court does not believe it is in the interests of this case to hear them on an abbreviated

8

schedule on July 3, 2013, at the same time as it hears argument on Plaintiff’s motion for a

9

preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

certain federal defendants, and (3) to quash a discovery request. If the Government wishes to bring

12
For the Northern District of California

Government’s motions for (1) partial judgment on the pleadings, (2) for dismissal of claims against

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

these motions after the court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, it may notice

13

them in accordance with Northern District Civil Local Rule 7. In addition, the court notes that the

14

undersigned’s standing order contemplates a joint letter process for discovery disputes, and the court

15

believes that that process suits the dispute raised in the Government’s opposition.

16
17
18
19

In light of the above, Plaintiff’s reply brief (which is due today) may be limited to responding to
the Government’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-00591 LB
ORDER

2