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)

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