MILLS et al v. BILLINGTON et al

Filing 233

ORDER denying 120 and 191 Motion for Sanctions; denying 172 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative 172 Motion for Summary Judgment as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the doctrine of res judicata. The motion is Denied w/o pre judice to renew and w/leave to renew based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel and failure to state a claim. Discovery disputes contained in motions 192 , 207 and 211 are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay. Within 10 days after these disputes are resolved, discovery must be completed. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification in accordance with the deadlines set forth in this order.. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/12/2013. (Scullin, Frederick)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________________
CHRISTINE MILLS, RUNAKO BALONDEMU,
GERALDINE DUNCAN, PRISCILLA IJEOMAH,
LAWRENCE PERRY, WILLIAM ROWLAND,
DAVID HUBBARD, CLIFTON KNIGHT,
SHARON TAYLOR, and CHARLES MWALIMU,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:04-CV-2205
(FJS/AK)

JAMES HADLEY BILLINGTON, Librarian,
Library of Congress,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES
1726 M Street, NW
Suite 203
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DAVID L. ROSE, ESQ.
JOSHUA N. ROSE, ESQ.
EARLENE W. ROSENBERG, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Attorneys for Defendant

BEVERLY M. RUSSELL, AUSA
JULIA DOUDS, AUSA

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 172, and Defendant's motion to strike the declarations that
Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 192.
The Court heard oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, these motions on

March 5, 2013. Consistent with the Court's discussion with counsel at the conclusion of oral
argument, the following constitutes the Court's written resolution of these motions. Accordingly,
the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on the doctrine of res judicata; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is
based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or
for summary judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is
based on failure to state a claim. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for sanctions, which seeks relief in the form of the
dismissal of Plaintiffs' class claims, see Dkt. No. 120, and Defendant's motion for leave to file a
supplemental memorandum in support of that motion, see Dkt. No. 191, are DENIED; and the
-2-

Court further
ORDERS that the pending discovery disputes regarding class discovery, including but
not limited to Defendant's motion for a protective order, see Dkt. No. 207, Plaintiffs' motion for
clarification of Magistrate Judge Kay's May 28, 2010 Order, see Dkt. No. 211, and Defendant's
motion to strike the declarations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 192, are referred to
Magistrate Judge Kay for resolution; and the Court further
ORDERS that, within ten days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the
outstanding class discovery issues, the parties shall complete said discovery; and the Court
further
ORDERS that, within forty days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the
outstanding class discovery issues, Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification within fourteen days of the date on which Plaintiffs file their motion for class
certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that the parties shall not file any further papers either in support of or in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2013
Syracuse, New York

-3-