KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 112

NOTICE Praecipe by LARRY E. KLAYMAN, CHARLES STRANGE, MARY ANN STRANGE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Motion To Strike and for Sanctions, # 2 Exhibit 2 -- Opposition to Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, # 3 Exhibit 3 -- Reply in Support of Motion to Strike and for Sanctions)(Klayman, Larry)

Exhibit 2

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Larry Elliott Klayman, et al.,
Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v.

Nos. 14-5004, 14-5005,
14-5016, 14-5017

Barack Hussein Obama, et al.,
Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs-appellees (and cross-appellants) Larry Klayman, et al., have
moved to strike the government’s motion to consolidate related appeals
and to set a briefing schedule, and seek sanctions against the government
for filing the motion to consolidate, although plaintiffs do not dispute that
the captioned appeals should be consolidated and should proceed to
briefing. As the attached e-mail from plaintiffs’ counsel (Mr. Klayman),
dated April 11, 2014, makes clear, plaintiffs consented to the relief sought
by the government: consolidation of related cases and establishment of a

(Page 1 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 2 of 5

briefing schedule (and leave to seek that procedural relief out of time). See
Mot. 1 (asking the Court to “consolidate the captioned cases and set a
briefing schedule”).1
Plaintiffs object on the ground that, in their view, the government’s
unopposed procedural motion sought a controverted disposition on the
merits. Mot. to Strike 1. That view is wrong, and the government’s motion
expressly stated that it did not seek dispositive relief. See Mot. 1 (“a
dispositive motion is not necessary in the circumstances of this appeal”); id.
at 6 (arguing that there is “no need” for dispositive relief at this time); id.at
10 (arguing that there is “no immediate need for relief in the form of a
dispositive motion at this time”). The motion sought no relief beyond
consolidation, for the Court to set a briefing schedule, and for the Court to
permit the government to seek those forms of procedural relief out of
time—plaintiffs plainly consented to, and their motion to strike offers no
disagreement with, those limited steps. Plaintiffs assert, but do not
In representing plaintiffs’ consent to the relief sought by the motion,
the government did not suggest that plaintiffs agreed with every statement
in the motion.
1

2
(Page 2 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 3 of 5

explain, that the government’s procedural motion would “cause . . . an
unnecessary delay.” Mot. to Strike 9. But the government’s motion seeks
to move these appeals forward and proceed to briefing, steps that would
not cause any delay. By contrast, plaintiffs’ motion to strike could lead to
procedural uncertainty and delay; the motion should be denied on that
ground as well.
As in the motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions,
which this Court partially granted, the government’s motion to consolidate
explained that reversal of the district court’s opinion is warranted
irrespective of the recent changes to the Section 215 bulk telephony
metadata program that have occurred since the district court entered its
preliminary injunction, and this Court is free to consider the significance of
those changes in briefing on the merits. Mot. 6-7, 9-10. It was not improper
or inappropriate for the government to provide that explanation of why
there is no need for a dispositive motion at this time.
The motion to strike and for sanctions should be denied.

3
(Page 3 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted,
Douglas N. Letter
[phone]
H. Thomas Byron III
[phone]

APRIL 2014

/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
Henry C. Whitaker
[phone]
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Room 7256
Washington, D.C. 20530

4
(Page 4 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2014, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the appellate CM/ECF
system.
I certify that the participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users
and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
Henry C. Whitaker

(Page 5 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 1 of 2

Larry Klayman
Whitaker, Henry (CIV)
Re: Klayman appeals--motion to consolidate
Friday, April 11, 2014 2:11:43 PM

We will consent
Larry Klayman
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Whitaker, Henry (CIV) <[e-mail]>
wrote:
Mr. Klayman:

The government will be filing a motion today informing the D.C. Circuit that the
government has decided not to file a dispositive motion. That motion will ask the Court to
consolidate the pending appeals and to set a single briefing schedule for both sets of
appeals. Because this is a procedural motion, and because the deadline for filing procedural
motions has passed, we will also be asking the Court for leave to file this motion out of
time.

We’d appreciate knowing your clients’ position on the motion so we can represent to the
Court whether the motion is opposed.

Thanks very much,

Henry

Henry C. Whitaker
Attorney, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Room 7256
Washington, D.C. 20530
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
(Page 6 of Total)

USCA Case #14-5004

Document #1490058

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page 2 of 2

(Page 7 of Total)