KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al
MOTION to Stay (Government Defendants' Motion for a Stay of Deadline to Respond to the Complaint in Light of Lapse in Appropriations) by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
Civil Action No.
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
United States, et al.,
GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY OF DEADLINE TO
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT IN LIGHT OF LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS
Defendants Barack Obama, President of the United States, Eric Holder, Attorney
General of the United States, and General Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National
Security Agency (NSA), insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, together with
defendants NSA and the United States Department of Justice (collectively, the
“Government Defendants”), hereby move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b), for a stay of the deadline for the Government Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’
Class Action Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 4) (the “Complaint”) in light of the recent
lapse in Government appropriations.
At the end of the day on September 30, 2013, the appropriations act that
had been funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department
lapsed. The same is true for most Executive agencies. The Department does not know
when funding will be restored by Congress.
Absent an appropriation, attorneys and employees at the Department of
Justice are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited
circumstances, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the
protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Accordingly, in the present circumstances,
the undersigned Department of Justice attorneys are obligated to file the instant motion
for a stay.
Undersigned counsel for the Government Defendants therefore request a
stay, until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department of Justice, of the
upcoming December 2, 2013, deadline 1 for the Government Defendants to respond to the
If this motion for a stay is granted, undersigned counsel will notify the
Court as soon as Congress has appropriated funds for the Department. The Government
Defendants request that, at that point, the current deadline for their response to the
Complaint be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), undersigned counsel attempted to
contact counsel for Plaintiffs by telephone and electronic mail in an effort to determine
whether Plaintiffs agree to or oppose the relief sought herein. Counsel was unable to
make contact with Plaintiffs’ counsel in advance of filing this motion. Counsel for
defendant Verizon Communications have advised that Verizon Communications consents
to this motion.
Therefore, although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the
other litigants, the Government Defendants hereby move for a stay of their deadline to
respond to the Complaint, until attorneys and employees at the Department of Justice are
permitted to resume their usual functions.
The Complaint was served on the Office of the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia on October 2, 2013. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)
and 12(a)(2), the Government Defendants’ response to the Complaint is therefore due to
be filed on December 2, 2013.
Dated: October 11, 2013
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
/s/ James J. Gilligan
JAMES J. GILLIGAN
Special Litigation Counsel
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6102
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 514-3358
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Counsel for the Government Defendants
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?