Speech First, Inc. v. SCHLISSEL et al

Filing 9

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by All Defendants. (Dawson, Rian)

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 1 of 8

Pg ID 285

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
____________________________________
)
SPEECH FIRST, INC.,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil No. 2:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS
v.
) Hon. Linda V. Parker
) Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
MARK SCHLISSEL, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
Defendants, pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 65.1,
respectfully request that this Court grant an extension through June 25, 2018, for
them to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, for the following
reasons:
1.

Plaintiff, a nationwide advocacy group, seeks a preliminary injunction

to enjoin fourteen University of Michigan officials from “taking any actions to
investigate, threaten or punish” students who violate the school’s prohibitions on
harassment and bullying, and to enjoin the University from allowing its Bias
Response Team to receive complaints of alleged incidents of bias on campus and
then address them. PI Mem. at 25.
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

2.

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 2 of 8

Pg ID 286

Plaintiff purports to act on behalf of three anonymous students

(identified as A, B, and C) who allegedly wish to engage in an “intellectual debate”
about topics ranging from gun rights to abortion to welfare and who contend that
their ability to do so is being chilled. There is, however, nothing in the University’s
policies that inhibits these unnamed students from engaging in any such discussions.
Indeed, the very policy under which Plaintiff sues emphasizes the University’s
commitment to “freedom of expression” and “vigorous discourse.” PI Ex. A at 1, 3;
see also University of Michigan, Standard Practice Guide Policy 601.1: Freedom of
Speech and Artistic Expression (“Expression of diverse points of view is of the
highest importance, not only for those who espouse a cause or position and then
defend it, but also for those who hear and pass judgment on that defense. The belief
that an opinion is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds
for its suppression.”).1

Furthermore, counsel for the University has assured

Plaintiff’s counsel that Students A, B, and C will not be subject to disciplinary action
for expressing their views.
3.

Plaintiff chose to file its lawsuit without first approaching the

University to discuss its concerns. Although it is a simple matter to provide Students
A, B, and C with the assurance that they are free to express the views set forth in the

1

Available at http://spg.umich.edu/policy/601.01.
2

27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 3 of 8

Pg ID 287

Complaint—and Defendants have already done this—it will require a more
extensive factual presentation to respond to the various arguments set forth in
support of the request for a preliminary injunction, including arguments going not
only to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but also to the issues of standing, mootness,
and irreparable harm and the public interest.
4.

Defendants and their counsel need a fair opportunity to assemble the

factual and legal record necessary to counter Plaintiff’s motion and to address the
mistaken factual and legal premises on which it is based. It will take time for
Defendants and their counsel to pull together the evidence that shows that the
Plaintiff has mischaracterized its policies and programs and how they have been
applied, and has painted a picture of the University that does not reflect the true
vibrancy of debate and discussion on campus. The policies and programs at issue
here are of fundamental importance to the University and its students, and they share
an interest in ensuring that the Court is presented with a full and fair record on which
to base its decision.
5.

On Monday, May 14, counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiff’s

counsel to request that they agree to allow Defendants 45 days from service of
Plaintiff’s motion (i.e., to and including June 25) to respond to the motion.
Plaintiff’s counsel declined to consent to this request, making this motion necessary.

3
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

6.

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 4 of 8

Pg ID 288

Plaintiff’s counsel have stated that they would consent to no more than

30 days for Defendants to respond.2 Plaintiff has stated in its motion that it wishes
to obtain “a decision . . . by the Sixth Circuit” before classes resume. PI Mem. at
25. But Plaintiff’s desire to race to the Court of Appeals is no reason to deny this
Court a full record (and adequate time) upon which to base its ruling. Plaintiff has
had ample time to prepare its Complaint, and nothing prevented Plaintiff from
commencing this action weeks, months or even years before it did so.
7.

There is no emergency that warrants an expedited briefing schedule in

this case. The 2017-18 academic year officially ended at commencement (on April
28, 2018); the vast majority of students are on summer break; and as noted above
the University through counsel has assured Students A, B, and C that they are free
to express the views set forth in their Complaint without fear of disciplinary action.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court set
a response date of June 25, 2018, for Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction.
Dated May 16, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Rian C. Dawson
Attorney for Defendants

2

Plaintiff’s counsel would then propose 14 days for a reply, with oral argument
shortly thereafter.
4
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Kevin T. Baine (D.C. Bar No. 238600)
Stephen J. Fuzesi (D.C. Bar No.
496723)
Kathryn “Kylie” Hoover (D.C. Bar
No. 1017260)
Amy B. McKinlay (D.C. Bar No.
1034542)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 5 of 8

Pg ID 289

HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
AND COHN LLP
J. Michael Huget (P39150)
Leonard M. Niehoff (P36696)
315 East Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Adam M. Wenner (P75309)
Rian C. Dawson (P81187)
660 Woodward Ave.
2290 First National Building
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT Detroit, MI 4826
AND GENERAL COUNSEL
Tel: [phone]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Timothy G. Lynch (P77385)
[e-mail]
David J. Masson (P37094)
Jack Bernard (P62975)
5010 Fleming Administration Building
503 Thompson Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340
[phone]
[e-mail]

5
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 6 of 8

Pg ID 290

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
__________________________________________
)
SPEECH FIRST, INC.,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil No. 2:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS
v.
) Hon. Linda V. Parker
) Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
MARK SCHLISSEL, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
For the reasons stated in Defendants Motion for Extension of Time To Oppose
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction, and pursuant to Local Rule 65.1,
Defendants respectfully request the Court to grant thier motion for a brief
extension—expiring on June 25, 2018—to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Dated May 16, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Rian C. Dawson
Attorney for Defendants

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
AND COHN LLP

Kevin T. Baine (D.C. Bar No. 238600)
Stephen J. Fuzesi (D.C. Bar No.
J. Michael Huget (P39150)
496723)
Leonard M. Niehoff (P36696)
6
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

Kathryn “Kylie” Hoover (D.C. Bar
No. 1017260)
Amy B. McKinlay (D.C. Bar No.
1034542)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 7 of 8

Pg ID 291

315 East Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Adam M. Wenner (P75309)
Rian C. Dawson (P81187)
660 Woodward Ave.
2290 First National Building
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT Detroit, MI 4826
AND GENERAL COUNSEL
Tel: [phone]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Timothy G. Lynch (P77385)
[e-mail]
David J. Masson (P37094)
Jack Bernard (P62975)
5010 Fleming Administration Building
503 Thompson Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340
[phone]
[e-mail]

7
27705838.1

4:18-cv-11451-LVP-EAS

Doc # 9

Filed 05/16/18

Pg 8 of 8

Pg ID 292

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on May 16, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will
send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.

Respectfully submitted,
HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
AND COHN LLP
/s/Rian C. Dawson
Rian C. Dawson (P81187)
660 Woodward Ave.
2290 First National Building
Detroit, MI 4826
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

8
27705838.1