DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al

Filing 139

ORDER denying 95 Motion to hold in Contempt. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/5/16. (rg, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 81-03876
ORDER

v.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et
al.,
Defendants.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion and for good cause shown,
IT IS on the 5th day of November 2016,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED; it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to hold Defendant in contempt and request for
sanctions is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to extend the Consent Decree is DENIED

without prejudice and the parties may seek additional discovery after Election Day.1

s/ John Michael Vazquez
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

1

The Court is not limiting post-election discovery requests to the events described in Nevada.
The Court is aware that the reason that the evidence is so limited is due to the time constraints
that the parties were operating under due to the approaching Election Day and, as a result, the
limited discovery that could reasonably be provided in such a short period. Although the Court
is denying Plaintiff’s current motion for injunctive relief, for a contempt finding, and for
sanctions, nothing in the Court’s opinion prohibits Plaintiff from making similar motions in the
future if, in its view, it believes that such motions are warranted in light of additional facts
discovered during post-election discovery.
2