Posted on 09/17/2009 11:01:02 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
Excerpts: "Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery (the "Motion"). The Court finds the Motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R. CIV. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion."
***
"The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery.
All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action."
(Excerpt) Read more at ia301520.us.archive.org ...
Not unexpected. I will be surprised however if he grants dismissal.
I think it IS necessary to opposing the motion to dismiss. One needs to be able to demonstrate that the electors and the Congress did not require reasonable proof of NBC. That proof needs to be submitted to the court. But failing that, discovery still can, and should, be granted at the October hearing.
That's a pretty big exception. It may constrain how the defendants may argue for dismissal, without exposing themselves to unwanted discovery.
Any bets on this one?
I think this judge is trying to be fair. I also think he smells a rat where Hussein is concerned but he feels it necessary to allow the defense the same consideration that he’d give any other defendant.
Gosh, who fights discovery so hard?
Someone with something to hide, maybe?
Like the same person who’s spent millions to keep that something hidden?
The government lawyers are making a constitutional argument to dismiss. Not the court’s business, they say, but that of the EC and the Congress. Too late, say they. Plaintiff ought to be able to show that evidence exists that the EC and Congress could have been looking at, seems to me.
It's my understanding the Government is arguing that the situation is one of Congressional jurisdiction, rather than Judicial, and therefore that no right of due process is lost by the court denying it's own power to hear the case (because Congress can address it at any time).
With the DOJ and Perkins Coie working their tails off to run interference for the boy marxist, Judge Carter is going to have to be the Marine that he is to stand up to them.
Ha. Obama would sue congress in the COURTS if they tried. But they won’t because the GOP is still spineless.
A couple of questions, anyone -
can a defendant appeal a rejected motion to dismiss to another court?
can a defendant appeal a rejected stay of discovery to another court?
Marine first, competent jurist second? Let me know how that works out, OK.
LOL, yep.
Any judge not enamored with the boy marxist knows that their is a rotten fish being hidden by the boy marxist. But it will take a spine to see that it is exposed.
The Court will accommodate Plaintiffs’ concerns by hearing any
proposed new trial dates at the October 5, 2009 Scheduling Conference.....
This sounds like a positive. With a firm trial date discovery would have to be issued sooner or later. I guess.
Sounds procedural more than anything. The law states that the motion to dismiss has to be dealt with first unless there is some compelling reason, and that the magstrate can rule to order discovery in the case that the plaintif needs some information in order to defeat the motion to dismiss. Well, would it not defeat the motion to dismiss if adoption pperwork were availible to prove there is reason to believe the potus is not an NBC??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.