Speech First, Inc. v. SCHLISSEL et al

Filing 11

RESPONSE to 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Speech First, Inc.. (Di Giacomo, John)

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 11

Filed 05/17/18

Pg 1 of 4

Pg ID 294

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SPEECH FIRST, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action 2:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

MARK SCHLISSEL, et al. ,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff Speech First, Inc. (“Speech First”) partially opposes defendants’ request
for 45 days to respond to Speech First’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), a response to a non-dispositive motion must be filed
within 14 days after service. Defendants’ response is currently due on May 25, 2018.
Given that this is an important case raising several weighty constitutional issues, Speech
First would not oppose granting Defendants 30 days to file their response. But granting
them 45 days, which would more than triple the deadline established by this Court’s local
rules, is unjustified. This case alleges that the University’s policies are chilling protected
speech and expression, and “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal
periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 11

Filed 05/17/18

Pg 2 of 4

Pg ID 295

347, 373 (1976). It is understandable why Defendants want to avoid judicial review for
as long as possible. But requests for preliminary injunctions in cases far more complex
than this challenge to University speech policies can be (and often are) litigated without
any extension—let alone one this lengthy.
Although Defendants now assure the Court that Speech First’s members will not
face disciplinary action for voicing the specific views set forth in the Complaint, they have
not even attempted to square those assurances with the actual text of the University’s
bans on “harassment” and “bias incidents.” Nor have Defendants tried to explain
where the line between the “freedom of expression” and “vigorous discourse” they
claim to celebrate and the “harassment” and “bias” they punish might be. Blessing
specific views once you are sued for having policies that chill speech does not make this
serious First Amendment problem go away. Speech First’s members cannot be forced
to guess as to what speech will subject them to discipline nor be required to preclear
their speech with Defendants to ensure it is acceptable.
The University’s assurances, in short, prove why Speech First brought this suit
in the first place and reinforce the need for judicial intervention before the school year
begins. By leaving too much discretion to administrators, the University’s amorphous
and expansive disciplinary policies “invite[] arbitrary, discriminatory, and overzealous
enforcement” and thus chill free speech. Leonardson v. City of East Lansing, 896 F.2d 190,
195-96 (6th Cir. 1990). Until these policies are enjoined, Speech First members will be
denied the basic rights the First Amendment guarantees them.
2

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 11

Filed 05/17/18

Pg 3 of 4

Pg ID 296

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Speech First respectfully requests that the Court
set a briefing schedule in which defendants’ response to the preliminary injunction
motion is due on June 11, 2018, Speech First’s reply brief is due on June 25, 2018, and
any oral argument is held as soon as practicable thereafter.
Respectfully submitted,
By:/s/ John A. Di Giacomo
Dated: May 17, 2018

John A. Di Giacomo (P73056)
REVISION LEGAL, PLLC
5024 Territorial Road
Grand Blanc, MI 48439
[phone]
[e-mail]
Local Counsel
William S. Consovoy
Jeffrey M. Harris
J. Michael Connolly
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
3301 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22201
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff Speech First, Inc.

3

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 11

Filed 05/17/18

Pg 4 of 4

Pg ID 297

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 17, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. Pursuant to agreement with Defendants’
counsel, an electronic copy of the foregoing was emailed to Defendants’ counsel on
May 17, 2018.

By:/s/ John A. Di Giacomo
John A. Di Giacomo (P73056)
REVISION LEGAL, PLLC
5024 Territorial Road
Grand Blanc, MI 48439
[phone]
[e-mail]

4