Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al

Filing 53

Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling by the United States Supreme Court by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Orland, Devon)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

Christopher Inniss and Shelton
Stroman; Rayshawn Chandler and
Avery Chandler; Michael Bishop
And Johnny Shane Thomas; and
Jennifer Sisson, on behalf of
Themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Deborah Aderhold et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
1:14-CV-01180-WSD

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A
RULING BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
COME NOW Defendant Aderhold and Defendant Fenton (hereinafter
Defendants), by and through counsel, and hereby file this unopposed motion to
stay proceedings.
The case at bar concerns the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-330(b)(1) and Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. IV, Para. I which define marriage for the state
of Georgia as a union between and man and a woman. (Doc. 1). On January 8,
2015 this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and determined that the laws
were subject to a rational basis review. (Doc. 49). On January 16, 2015, the
Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in four cases Obergefell,
James, et al. V. Hodges Richard, et al 14-556; Tanco, Valeria, et al. v. Haslam,

Gov. Of TN, et al. 14-562; Deboer, April, et al. V. Snyder, Gov. Of MI, et al. 14571; Bourke Gregory, et al. V. Beshear, Gov. of KY, et al. 14-574
The Court will address the following questions: 1)Does the Fourteenth
Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same
sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and
performed out-of-state?
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourage a trial court to limit
discovery on its own or on the motion of a party when:
... the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources,
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (stating the court “must limit the frequency or extent of
discovery” when such a determination is made); see also Panola Land Buyers
Ass’n. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1558-59 (11th Cir. 1985). Rule 26 gives trial
courts broad discretion to alter the sequence of discovery for the convenience of
the parties and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

2

The Supreme Court’s decision on the stated issues will most certainly guide the
future path of the case at bar. As a result, Defendants ask the Court to stay
proceedings in this Court until the Supreme Court rules on these pending cases.
Respectfully submitted,
SAMUEL S. OLENS
Attorney General

551540

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS
Deputy Attorney General

558555

s/Britt Grant___________
Solicitor General

113403

554301
/s/ Devon Orland
Senior Asst. Attorney General
Counsel for Defendant Aderhold and Fenton

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I have electronically filed the foregoing
Motion to Stay Proceedings and Draft Order using the CM/ECF system which
will automatically send electronic mail notification of such filing to counsel of
record as follows:
Tara Borelli
William Custer
Jennifer Odom
Jennifer Dempsey
Luke Lantta

I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the
document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: NONE
Done this 20th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Devon Orland
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4