See # 94.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2336970/posts?page=94#94
Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633550/03118745409
Filed & Entered: 09/10/2009 Ex Parte Application for Order re Discovery Matter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633565/03118746941
and
Document(s) Ping to #94!!
bookmark
I read the docs and looks like Carter referred the matter of whether there should be immediate discovery to a magistrate judge for a hearing on Monday.
So it looks like the magistrate judge will either say yes or no to expedited discovery some time before Oct 5. If the Magistrate judge says no, it goes back to Judge Carter whether or not to order discovery on October 5.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 59
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SA CV09-0082-DOC(ANx) Date September 10, 2009
CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, ET. AL., -V- BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET. AL., DAVID O. CARTER NONE PRESENT Court Reporter / Recorder N/A Tape No.
Present: The Honorable Kristee Hopkins Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: NONE Proceedings: (In Chambers)
Attorneys Present for Defendants: NONE
ORDER REFERRING MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Court orders First Amended Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory and Initiation of Discovery, filed by plaintiffs on August 20, 2009 referred to assigned Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. Accordingly, the noticed hearing date of September 14, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. before this Court is vacated. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action.
: Initials of Preparer kh
00
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
I don’t understand all the legal speak well enough to decipher what exactly is going on, but I did see where it says on one of those documents “Order referring motion to magistrate judge”.
Not sure what exactly that does. However, a search of the magistrate judge to whom it was referred shows that he made a donation to the “Lincoln Club of Orange County” and going to THIER page I see that they are for “Limiting Government and expanding freedom.”
So the Magistrate Judge mentioned appears, on the surface, to be one of the good guys.
Whats all of what I just typed worth? Danged if I know.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON W. WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division ROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609) Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division DAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527) Assistant United States Attorney Room 7516, Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 Email: roger.west4@usdoj.gov david.dejute@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SOUTHERN DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) BARACK H. OBAMA, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ________________________________) No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
EX PARTE APPLICATION Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby apply to this Court, on an ex parte basis, for an Order staying all discovery in this matter pending the Court’s ruling upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, currently set for hearing on October 5, 2009, with the exception of discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter said Motion. This Ex Parte application will be based upon these moving papers, the Memorandum of Points and authorities filed herewith, and upon such other and further arguments, documents and grounds as may be advanced to the Court in the future. All requirements of
the Local Rules for ex parte applications have been met, including the notice requirements of Local Rule 7-19 as more particularly contained within the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: September 10, 2009 GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Roger E. West ROGER E. WEST Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division /s/ David A. DeJute DAVID A. DeJUTE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
27 28
1
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 3 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs’ filed their Complaint in this matter challenging the fitness for office of President Obama. Over
seven months later, on August 25, 2009, Plaintiffs finally effected service of process. Soon thereafter, on September 4, 2009,
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss with a hearing set for October 5, 2009. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants maintain that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. As more fully
explained in that Motion, and among other reasons, the operative complaint fails to confer subject matter jurisdiction for several reasons: (1) The Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show the required injury-in-fact or the required redressability to confer jurisdiction; (2) The case presents non-justiciable political questions which are committed, by the very text of the Constitution, to a different branch of Government; (3) Plaintiffs are not authorized to pursue a Quo Warranto action against the President of the United States; (4) Neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 confers jurisdiction; and, (5) Plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act claims as a matter of law do confer jurisdiction. Any one of these grounds is sufficient to stay discovery pending a resolution of the Motion. On September 8, 2009, the Court convened a hearing upon issues which are unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss. At that hearing, the
Court granted Defendants leave to file this Ex Parte application. /// 2
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 4 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
II. ARGUMENT DISCOVERY SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS CONFER SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A District Court enjoys broad discretion in controlling discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
1988); Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426, 1436 (9th Cir. 1996) (and cases cited therein). Where, as here, there is pending a motion attacking the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, a threshold issue in the absence of which the court cannot proceed to hear other issues, “it is a recognized and appropriate procedure for a court to limit discovery proceedings at the outset to a determination of jurisdictional matters.” Blackburn v. United States, supra, 100
F.3d at 1436 (quoting United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 47 U.S. 72, 79-80, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 227273, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988). In Blackburn, the Ninth Circuit upheld
the decision of this Court per Judge Stotler, which limited discovery solely to the threshold jurisdictional issues for a time period of 120 days. See Id.
Cases are legion which recognize that, once a dispositive motion has been filed, discovery should be limited to only those issues raised in that dispositive motion. See, e.g. Jarvis v.
Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Sprague v. Brook, 149 F.R.D. 575, 577 (and cases cited therein) (N.D. Ill. 1993); Chavous v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility, etc., et al., 201 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001); Cromer v. Braman, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 3346675 (W.D. Mich. 2007)(“A trial court has broad discretion and 3
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 5 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
inherent power to stay discovery until the preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined”) (citation omitted) and also (“A stay of discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion ‘is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources’”) (citations omitted). Currently pending before this Court for hearing on October 5, 2009, is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, a dispositive motion setting forth, among other things, the reasons why Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint cannot, as a matter of law, confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. As the cases cited above make
clear, because subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue challenging the very power of this Court to proceed, discovery should be stayed until such time as this Court determines whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. 100 F.3d at 1436 and cases cited therein. See, e.g., Blackburn,
A stay would also not See, e.g.,
waste the resources of this Court or of the parties. Cromer, 2007 WL 3346675 and cases cited therein.
On September 10, 2009, counsel for Defendants notified each of Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-19 of the substance of this ex parte application. Plaintiffs’ counsel Dr. Orly Taitz
stated that she opposed this application as did Plaintiffs’ counsel Gary Kreep. It should be noted, however, that no apparent
prejudice will result from granting this ex parte application for a stay of discovery until such time as the Court determines whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. A seven month time period of
the Plaintiffs’ own making lapsed between the filing of the Complaint and the date when service of process was effected. 4 Less
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
Document 60
Filed 09/10/2009
Page 6 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
than two weeks then expired before Defendants’ filed their dispositive Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2009. Granting this
ex parte application until Defendants’ Motion can be heard on October 5, 2009, will therefore stay discovery for approximately one month. This stay is only one quarter of the 120 days approved The only
by the Ninth Circuit for the discovery stay in Blackburn.
parties prejudiced would be the Defendants if this Court were to deny this ex parte application, as discovery would be allowed to proceed on matters extraneous to subject matter jurisdiction. It is respectfully submitted that this Court should enter an Order herein staying all pending and future discovery, motion, and other matters related thereto, pending resolution of the this dispositive motion, with the exception of any discovery which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need in order to counter said Motion.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: September 10, 2009 GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney LEON WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Roger E. West ROGER E. WEST Assistant United States Attorney First Assistant Chief, Civil Division /s/ David A. DeJute DAVID A. DeJUTE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
26 27 28 5
~~Looks true .... Scribd docs are up... PING!
Is this 9-14-09 hearing about the Kenyan bc
Lucas Smith is holding which Taitz said was
an urgent matter?
Prayers for Judge Carter.
PRAISE GOD! YEA!