State of Washington et al v. Trump et al

Filing 90

ORDER granting, in part, #83 Defendants' Motion to Clarify the Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

Case 1:20-cv-03127-SAB

ECF No. 90

filed 10/02/20

1

PageID.2828 Page 1 of 3

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Oct 02, 2020

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF

No. 1:20-CV-03127-SAB

9 COLORADO, STATE OF
10 CONNECTICUT, STATE OF ILLINOIS
11 STATE OF MARYLAND, STATE OF
12 MICHIGAN, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
13 STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW
14 MEXICO, STATE OF OREGON, STATE

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,

15 OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

16 VERMONT, COMMONWEALTH OF

CLARIFY THE PRELIMINARY

17 VIRGINIA, and STATE OF

INJUNCTION

18 WISCONSIN,
19

Plaintiffs,

20

v.

21 DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
22 capacity as President of the United States
23 of America; UNITED STATES OF
24 AMERICA; LOUIS DEJOY, in his official
25 capacity as Postmaster General; UNITED
26 STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
27
28

Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
CLARIFY * 1

Case 1:20-cv-03127-SAB

ECF No. 90

filed 10/02/20

PageID.2829 Page 2 of 3

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the Preliminary

1

2 Injunction, ECF No. 83. The motion was heard without oral argument.
Defendants move to clarify the Court’s preliminary injunction, asserting that

3

4 some aspects of the Court’s order could be interpreted to cause an overall
5 degradation in service or create obligations that cannot be fulfilled. In response,
6 Plaintiffs submitted a proposed Order on which the parties conferred. ECF No. 887 1. Plaintiffs indicate Defendants do not oppose the entry of Plaintiffs’ proposed
8 order. ECF No. 88. Good cause exists to grant Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the
9 Preliminary Injunction, incorporating the language set forth in Plaintiffs’ proposed
10 order.
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

12

1. Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 83, is

13 GRANTED in part, and DENIED, in part as follows:
14

a.

15

Preliminary Injunction Order is granted, in part. Paragraph 2(a) is

16

clarified to provide that the Postal Service is not required to delay a trip

17

when the impact of the delay will be an overall degradation in service,

18

e.g., in order to prevent a small amount of mail from being delayed if

19

doing so would cause a larger amount of mail to be delayed, but that the

20

Postal Service shall use extra trips to minimize the effect of such delays

21

and to meet service commitments, except when not feasible. “[E]xtra

22

trips that are reasonably necessary to complete timely mail delivery [are]

23

not to be unreasonably restricted or prohibited,” as the Postal Service

24

committed to in its September 21, 2020 memorandum to employees.

25

b.

26

Preliminary Injunction Order is granted, in part. Paragraph 2(b) is

27

clarified to provide that the Postal Service is required to ensure that

28

Defendants’ proposed clarification to Paragraph 2(a) of the

Defendants’ proposed clarification to Paragraph 2(b) of the

Election Mail “is generally delivered in line with First-Class Mail
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
CLARIFY * 2

Case 1:20-cv-03127-SAB

ECF No. 90

filed 10/02/20

PageID.2830 Page 3 of 3

1

delivery standards,” as the Postal Service committed to in its September

2

25, 2020 memorandum to employees, but the Court is not specifying that

3

Election Mail entered as Marketing Mail be shipped by any particular

4

means (such as by air). To facilitate this goal, the Postal Service will, as

5

it has promised, take “extraordinary measures” “between October 26 and

6

November 24, to accelerate the delivery of ballots, when the Postal

7

Service is able to identify the mailpiece as a ballot. These extraordinary

8

measures include, but are not limited to, expedited handling, extra

9

deliveries, and special pickups as used in past elections, to connect blank

10

ballots entered by election officials to voters or completed ballots

11

returned by voters entered close to or on Election Day to their intended

12

destination (e.g., Priority Mail Express, Sunday deliveries, special

13

deliveries, running collected ballots to Boards of Elections on Election

14

Day, etc.).”

15

c.

16

Preliminary Injunction Order is denied, without prejudice, to the same

17

arguments being raised again in the future.

18

Defendants’ proposed clarification to Paragraph 3 of the

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order

19 and forward copies to counsel.
20

DATED this 2nd day of October 2020.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stanley A. Bastian

United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
CLARIFY * 3