City of Syracuse, NY et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al

Filing 124

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 123 withdrawing 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; withdrawing 97 Motion for Summary Judgment; withdrawing 118 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 123 Letter Motion to Stay re: 61 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgm ent ., 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment and opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment., 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment ., 123 LETTER MOTION to Stay or, in the alternative, for an extension of time addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Talia Kraemer dated April 26, 2021. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. This action is temporarily stayed. The parties are directed to provide the Court with a status update by no later than June 2 5, 2021. Based on this development, the Court considers the parties' motions for summary judgment to be withdrawn. The parties may seek leave to refile their motions after the stay is lifted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a stay in this matter. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 61, 97, 118, and 123. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/26/2021) (rro) Modified on 4/27/2021 (rro).

Case 1:20-cv-06885-GHW Document 124 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
[Type text]
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10007

MEMORANDUM ENDORSED
BY ECF
Honorable Gregory H. Woods
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

April 26, 2021
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/26/2021

Re: City of Syracuse, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, et al., 20-CV-06885-GHW
Dear Judge Woods:
This Office represents the Government Defendants in the above-captioned action. We
write on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Government Defendants to request a temporary stay of this
matter. Alternatively, if the Court does not grant this stay request, then Plaintiffs and the
Government Defendants respectfully request a one-week extension of time to file their responses
to Polymer80’s summary judgment motion, which are currently due on May 5. This is Plaintiffs’
and the Government Defendants’ first request for an extension of this date. Polymer80 does not
consent to these requests.
As the Court is aware, this case involves the Government’s regulation of unfinished frames
and receivers (colloquially referred to as “ghost guns”) and whether those devices must be
regulated as firearms pursuant to the Gun Control Act (“GCA”). Plaintiffs and the Government
Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment and the briefing for those motions was
completed on March 19, 2021. Also on March 19, the Court permitted Polymer80, an entity that
produces some of the devices at issue in this litigation, to intervene. See Dkt. No. 113. On March
27, 2021, the Court adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule as to Polymer80’s summary
judgment motion. See Dkt. No. 117. Pursuant to that schedule, Polymer80 filed its summary
judgment motion on April 15, 2021. See Dkt. No. 118. According to the Court’s scheduling order,
Plaintiffs must oppose that summary judgment motion by May 5, 2021, and, to the extent the
Government Defendants wish to be heard on Polymer80’s summary judgment motion, they must
also make any submission by May 5.
On April 8, 2021, President Biden indicated that he would be directing the Department of
Justice to engage in new rulemaking with respect to the regulation of ghost guns. The President
set a goal of issuing a new proposed rule within 30 days. In light of these developments, the
Plaintiffs and the Government Defendants respectfully submit that a stay of this action (including
the pending briefing deadlines for Polymer80’s summary judgment motion) is appropriate. The

Case 1:20-cv-06885-GHW Document 124 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Plaintiffs and the Government Defendants propose providing the Court with a status update on
May 14, 2021, at which point Plaintiffs hope that they will have seen and evaluated the new
proposed rule, and all parties will be in a better position to determine how to proceed as to the
issues raised in this litigation.1 Polymer80, which opposes these requests, has informed the
Government that it does not believe a stay (or the alternative request for an extension) should be
considered until after a new proposed rule has been issued and the parties have had the opportunity
to evaluate the proposed rule.
We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: /s/ Talia Kraemer
ALEXANDER J. HOGAN
TALIA KRAEMER
Assistant United States Attorneys
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Application granted. This action is temporarily stayed. The parties are directed to provide the Court with a status update by no later
than June 25, 2021. Based on this development, the Court considers the parties' motions for summary judgment to be withdrawn. The
parties may seek leave to refile their motions after the stay is lifted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a stay in this matter. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motions pending at
Dkt. Nos. 61, 97, 118, and 123.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26, 2021
New York, New York

1

_____________________________________

GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

There is a similar action pending in the Northern District of California. See State of California,
et. al. v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, et al., No. 20-cv-6761 (EMC) (N.D. Cal. 2020).
On April 9, 2021, that court, sua sponte, stayed that action “[i]n light of recent developments
regarding ATF’s regulation of products at issue in this case,” and set a case management
conference for May 27, 2021. See Dkt. No. 83.