McCrory et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 43

ORDER allowing North Carolinians for Privacy's 22 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/20/2016. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-238-BO

PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of North
Carolina, and FRANK PERRY, in his
official capacity as Secretary, North
Carolina Department of Public Safety,
Plaintiffs,

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)

This cause comes before the Court on a motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in this matter by the plaintiffs in North Carolinians for
Privacy v. United States Dept. ofJustice, No. 5:16-CV-245-FL. Plaintiffs in this action have

responded indicating they do not oppose consolidation. [DE 40]. The federal defendants have
responded in opposition to the motion. [DE 38]. Plaintiffs in Berger v. United States Dept. of
Justice, No. 5:16-CV-240-FL, whose motion to consolidate this Court recently allowed [DE 36],

have responded stating they do not oppose the motion to consolidate by North Carolinians for
Privacy. [DE 42].
Rule 42 provides for the consolidation of actions pending before a court if the actions
involve common questions oflaw or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion
to consolidate cases pending in this district, AIS J Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater
Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977), and it does not require consent of the parties to do

so. See, e.g., Arnoldv. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681F.2d186, 191 (4th Cir. 1982) (discussing sua
sponte consolidation); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 210 F.3d
771, 774 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent of parties not required for consolidation). In determining
whether to consolidate cases, a court considers the risks of prejudice and possible confusion
against the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, as well as the
burdens on the parties andjudicial resources. Arnold, 681 F.2d at 193.
Having reviewed the complaints as well as the motion and responses thereto, and as
found previously in regard to the motion by the Berger plaintiffs, the Court finds these cases to
include common factual and legal issues, that consolidation would not impose any undue burden
on the parties or witnesses in these matters, and that consolidation would further the efficient and
timely administration of justice. Therefore, the Court in its discretion ALLOWS the motion to
consolidate by North Carolinians for Privacy. [DE 22].

SO ORDERED, this

tJ2_ day of June, 2016.

""~ w. 13,~
w.
~ if
TERRENCE
BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

I