State of Hawaii v. Trump
Declaration re #303 Reply, Supplemental Declaration of Neal K. Katyal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #3 Exhibit H, #4 Exhibit I, #5 Certificate of Service)(Katyal, Neal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, and ISMAIL
Civil No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX
TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the dates and by the methods of service noted below,
a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Declaration of Neal K. Katyal in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary
Injunction was served on the following at their last known addresses:
Served Electronically through CM/ECF on July 5, 2017, on counsel for all
amicus parties of record and the following:
Elliott Enoki, Esq.
Edric Ming-Kai Ching, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Wall, Esq.
Chad A. Readler, Esq.
Michelle R. Bennett, Esq.
Brad P. Rosenberg, Esq.
Daniel Schwei, Esq.
DATED: Washington, D.C., July 5, 2017.
/s/ Neal K. Katyal
DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465)
Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i
CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No. 8495)
Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923)
DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051)
KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813)
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743)
Deputy Attorneys General
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I
Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i
NEAL K. KATYAL*
COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK*
MITCHELL P. REICH*
THOMAS P. SCHMIDT*
ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh
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?