DOE v. TRUMP

No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR).

JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Chase , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro hac vice.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, Amy C. Williams-Derry , KELLER ROHRBACK, Derek W. Loeser , KELLER ROHRBACK, Emily Chiang , ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Laurie B. Ashton , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro hac vice, Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Lynn Lincoln Sarko , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Chase , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro hac vice, Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, Amy C. Williams-Derry , KELLER ROHRBACK, Derek W. Loeser , KELLER ROHRBACK, Emily Chiang , ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Laurie B. Ashton , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro hac vice, Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Lynn Lincoln Sarko , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Joseph Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK.

James Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Council on American Islamic Relations - Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Jack Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Jason Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Gaffney , KELLER ROHRBACK, La Rond Baker , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA & Tana Lin , KELLER ROHRBACK.

Donald Trump, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett . US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

U.S. Department of State, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Kevin McAleenan, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Michele James, Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Bennett , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Pursuant to the Court's May 22, 2017, Order to Show Cause, Dkt. # 32, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective undersigned counsel; hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 13,780, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" ("EO2"). See 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017). Plaintiffs have filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief contesting the legality of EO2, Dkt. # 30, as well as a Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. # 19. Pursuant to earlier Stipulations and Orders, Defendants' response to the Second Amended Complaint is currently due on June 1, 2017 and their response to Plaintiffs' class certification motion is currently due fourteen days after the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawai`i v. Trump, No. 17-50 (D. Haw.). See Dkt. # s 18, 29.

2. On May 17, 2017, and May 22, 2017, respectively, the Court entered orders staying the proceedings in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-141JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 189, and Ali v. Trump, No. 17-135JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. # 95, pending resolution of the appeal in Hawai`i v. Trump (Hawai`i), No. 17-15589 (9th Cir.). The Court further ordered the parties to file a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii so that the Court could evaluate the continued appropriateness of the stay at that time. The Court also noted that any party may move to lift the stay should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted.

3. In light of the Court's orders staying the proceedings in Washington and Ali, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that a similar stay is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

a. Proceedings in this case (including Defendants' deadlines to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and class certification motion) shall be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. b. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii so that the Court may evaluate the continued appropriateness of a stay at that time. c. Should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted, any party may move to lift the stay. For example, if the Ninth Circuit lifts or narrows the preliminary injunction in Hawaii, Plaintiffs may seek to lift the stay for the purpose of filing a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.1 d. As the Court noted in Washington, Dkt. # 189 at 8-9, Plaintiffs may send preservation letters to third parties to notify them of the litigation and request that they preserve any potentially relevant evidence. If Plaintiffs do not believe that sending such letters will resolve the issue of third-party evidentiary preservation, Plaintiffs may move for a limited modification of the stay order to allow Plaintiffs to issue subpoenas to third parties. If any such motion is granted, the Court would then stay any required production under or response to the subpoenas until such time as the stay is fully lifted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, subject to the Court's approval, that:

A. Proceedings in this case (including Defendants' deadlines to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and class certification motion) are stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.

B. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii so that the Court may evaluate the continued appropriateness of a stay at that time.

C. Should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted, any party may move to lift the stay. For example, if the Ninth Circuit lifts or narrows the preliminary injunction in Hawaii, Plaintiffs may seek to lift the stay for the purpose of filing a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

D. Plaintiffs may send preservation letters to third parties to notify them of the litigation and request that they preserve any potentially relevant evidence. If Plaintiffs do not believe that sending such letters will resolve the issue of third-party evidentiary preservation, Plaintiffs may move for a limited modification of the stay order to allow Plaintiffs to issue subpoenas to third parties. If any such motion is granted, the Court would then stay any required production under or response to the subpoenas until such time as the stay is fully lifted.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiffs were preparing to file a motion for preliminary injunction in mid-March when this Court stayed the temporary restraining order proceedings in Ali v. Trump. Order Staying Pls.' Mot. TRO & Prelim. Injunctive Relief, Ali, No. 17-135JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017), Dkt. # 79. Using that order as a guide, the Doe Plaintiffs did not file their motion.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases