Cargill et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al

Filing 46

ORDER setting schedule for discovery and summary-judgment briefing. Signed by Judge Dustin M. Howell. (jv2)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION MICHAEL CARGILL; CTC HGC, LLC, Plaintiffs § § § § v. § § BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, § TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND § EXPLOSIVES, STEVEN § DETTELBACH, IN HIS OFFICIAL § CAPACITY; MERRICK B. § GARLAND, IN HIS OFFICIAL § CAPACITY; UNITED STATES § DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § Defendants § No. 1:22-CV-01063-DAE ORDER The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs should be entitled to discovery in support of the ultra vires claim they assert against Defendants. Dkt. 44 (The Parties’ Joint Statement on Discovery Positions); see Dkt. 1, at 13-14 (Count III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, seeking “Equitable Relief for an Ongoing Violation of Federal Law”). The District Judge referred the matter to the undersigned to resolve the discovery dispute and to enter a scheduling order setting a schedule for the parties’ anticipated crossmotions for summary judgment. Dkt. 41. The Court set the matter for hearing, and after considering the parties’ filings, their arguments at the hearing, and the applicable law, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to limited discovery in support of their equitable cause of action. See, e.g., Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 1 Sec., No. 6:23-CV-00007, 2023 WL 2842760, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023) (“One type of suit that can proceed against federal officers in their official capacities is a suit alleging a federal officer acted ultra vires of statutorily delegated authority. This is exactly the type of claim the Plaintiff States raise in their complaint. … Therefore, the Court will permit extra-record discovery on the Plaintiff States’ ultra vires claim.” (internal citations, quotations, and modifications omitted)). Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS the following schedule for discovery and for summary-judgment briefing: Initial Disclosures December 8, 2023 Discovery Complete February 18, 2024 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (20-page limit) March 18, 2024 Defendants’ Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition (40-page limit) April 29, 2024 Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition and June 10, 2024 Reply (30-page limit) Defendants’ Reply (10-page limit) July 1, 2024 SIGNED November 14, 2023. DUSTIN M. HOWELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?