DOES 1-9 v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Filing 31

MOTION to Stay Responsive Briefing Deadlines to the Government's re 28 Motion to Dismiss by John Does 1,3-4, Jane Does 1-3, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENTS ASSOCIATION. (Mattei, Christopher) Modified to add link on 3/14/2025 (zdp).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 25-0325 (JMC)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AGENTS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 25-0328 (JMC)

v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY
BRIEFING ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Individual John Doe and Jane Doe Plaintiffs from 1:25-cv-325 and 1:25-cv-328 (“Doe
Plaintiffs”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Association (“FBIAA”), collectively,
“Plaintiffs,” respectfully move this court on an expedited basis to stay responsive briefing
deadlines to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 26, 2025 (Dkt. 28) (the
“Government’s Motion”) because the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 25)
(“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) presents overlapping, if not identical, issues. Briefing on the Plaintiffs’
Motion is well underway, limited requests for jurisdictional discovery are pending, and a hearing

1

is scheduled for March 27, 2025. Principles of judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of holding
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss in abeyance until the Court resolves the Plaintiffs’ request
for injunctive relief.
I.

Procedural History
On February 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

(“TRO”) (Dkt. 3). 1 On February 6, 2025, the Government filed its opposition to the TRO, alleging
a lack of standing (Dkt. 11). On February 6, 2025, the Court held a hearing and, the next day,
entered a consensual order. The consensual order restrained the Government from disclosing the
identities of FBI personnel who responded to a February 2, 2025 survey (the “Survey”) – seeking
information on the employees’ involvement in investigation the events of January 6, 2021 –
without advance notice to the Plaintiffs.
Through the February 7, 2025 consensual order, the Court also entered the parties’ agreedupon scheduling order setting briefing deadlines for any request for preliminary injunctive relief.
In accordance with that Order, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on
February 24, 2025. A week before filing their Motion, on February 17, 2025, Plaintiffs sought
limited discovery pertaining to the issues encompassed by the Motion. Consistent with the Court’s
February 28, 2025 comments denying the original discovery motion without prejudice, Plaintiffs
have refined their discovery requests to focus principally on the jurisdictional challenges raised by
the Government.
On February 26, 2025, without notice to the Plaintiffs and as jurisdiction-related discovery
requests were still pending, the Government filed a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss challenging the

1

For ease of references, docket citations are to 1:25-cv-325-JMC, with which 1:25-cv-328-JMC
has been consolidated.
2

Court’s jurisdiction. Principally, the Government revisited its arguments from its February 6, 2025
opposition that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs cannot show that the harm they
articulate is imminent, and further argue that Plaintiffs’ various statutory and constitutional claims
fail as a matter of law.
II.

Discussion
“Resolving a motion to stay or to hold a matter in abeyance pending the outcome of a

related or parallel proceeding turns upon the unique circumstances of the case, and is largely a
matter of discretion for the court.” Khadr v. Bush, 587 F. Supp. 2d 225, 229 (D.D.C. 2008). The
authority to order a stay “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition
of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
Drug Reform Coordination Network, Inc. v. Grey House Publ’g, Inc., No. 14-cv-701, 2015 WL
13668667, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2015) (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,
254–55 (1936)).
A court can grant a motion to stay if it finds that such a stay would be in the interest of
judicial economy and avoid unnecessary litigation. Khadr, 587 F. Supp. 2d at 229 (citing Al–Anazi
v. Bush, 370 F. Supp. 2d 188, 199 (D.D.C. 2005)); P.J.E.S. by & through Francisco v. Mayorkas,
652 F. Supp. 3d 103, 109-10 (D.D.C. 2023) (granting Plaintiffs’ motion to hold motion to dismiss
in abeyance where parallel proceedings would settle relevant matters of fact and law and there
would be no harm to Defendants from a stay).
As the Court is aware, its ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Motion will resolve the issue of whether
the Plaintiffs have met their burden concerning imminent harm and standing. Indeed, Plaintiffs’
Motion extensively discusses how Plaintiffs believe they adequately allege standing. These
arguments will no doubt be challenged by the Government in their Opposition to Plaintiffs’

3

Motion, due to the Court by March 14, 2025. The issues will be further briefed in Plaintiffs’ Reply
to the Government’s Opposition, due to be filed before March 21, 2025. The Government’s Motion
to Dismiss is entirely redundant on the issues of imminence and standing. Likewise, the
Government’s contention that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled facts entitling them to relief
under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, can be considered by the Court in connection with the Plaintiffs’ Motion, as the
Court will be required to determine whether the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of
their aforementioned claims.
III.

Conclusion
The parties and the Court should not spend valuable time and resources litigating identical

issues via two different procedural vehicles regurgitating the same facts and arguments. All
challenges raised in the Government’s Motion can be resolved by the Court’s resolution of the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Government suffers no harm when the Court
will be resolving the same challenges in a mutually-agreed upon schedule already entered on the
docket.
In accordance with Local Rule LCvR 7(m), Plaintiffs consulted with Government counsel
before filing this motion. The Government opposes this request for a stay, but did not provide its
rationale for opposition.

Respectfully Submitted,

4

LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ZAID, P.C.

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE

By:

By:
Pamela M. Keith
PAMELA M. KEITH, D.C. Bar #448421
SCOTT M. LEMPERT, D.C. Bar #1045184
650 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for John and Janes Does 1-9, et al.
(25-325)

Mark S. Zaid
MARK S. ZAID, D.C. Bar #440532
BRADLEY P. MOSS, D.C. Bar #975905
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for John Does 1,3-4,
Jane Does 1-3 (25-328)

STATE DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND

KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, PC

By:

By:
Margaret Donovan
Christopher Mattei, Bar # 27500 (pro hac vice)
Margaret Donovan, Bar # 31787 (pro hac vice)
350 Fairfield Ave., Suite 501
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Federal Bureau of Investigation
Agents Association (25-328)

Norman L. Eisen
Norman L. Eisen D.C. Bar # 435051
Pooja Chaudhuri, D.C. Bar # 888314523
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, #15180
Washington, D.C. 20003
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for John Does 1,3-4,
Jane Does 1-3 (25-328)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5