Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Census - Plaintiff - 7.5.2019
Census - Plaintiff - 7.5.2019
Plaintiffs,
v. Hon. George J. Hazel
Plaintiffs,
v. Hon. George J. Hazel
Defendants.
Pursuant to the Court’s order of July 3, 2019, Plaintiffs hereby submit and request that
Earlier today, on July 5, 2019, Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendants regarding the
attached proposed scheduling order. Defendants stated that they did not oppose Plaintiffs’
proposed scheduling order except that Defendants requested that the schedule be held in
abeyance indefinitely until Defendants reach a “new” decision regarding whether or not they will
attempt to inquire about citizenship status as part of the 2020 decennial census.
There is no reason to hold the proposed scheduling order in abeyance. Defendants cannot
avoid Plaintiffs’ equal protection and Section 1985 claims merely by pretending that the same or
1
Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 186 Filed 07/05/19 Page 2 of 4
a similar decision is somehow “new” or somehow cures the discriminatory intent that Plaintiffs
have established as motivating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 census. See,
e.g., Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656
(1993); City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982); N.C. State Conference of
would need to seek additional discovery in the wake of a purportedly “new” decision. Plaintiffs
agree. However, that potentiality is not a basis for indefinitely deferring discovery on Plaintiffs’
valid equal protection and Section 1985 claims, particularly given that Plaintiffs’ proposed
scheduling order expressly provides for modification in light of any developments, “including
but not limited to any specific efforts by the federal government to inquire about citizenship
Defendants’ repeated representations to this Court and other courts, including the United States
Supreme Court, that timing is of the essence and that “the census questionnaire needed to be
finalized for printing by the end of June 2019.” Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed scheduling order.
2
Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 186 Filed 07/05/19 Page 3 of 4
Thomas A. Saenz*
Nina Perales *
Denise Hulett*
Andrea Senteno*
Burth G. López (Bar No. 20461)
Tanya G. Pellegrini*
Julia A. Gomez*
3
Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 186 Filed 07/05/19 Page 4 of 4
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
Tel: (202) 662-6000
Fax: (202) 662-6302
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
P. Benjamin Duke*
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Tel: (212) 8411000
Fax: (212) 841-1010
[email protected]
Lawrence A. Hobel*
Karun Tilak*
Salesforce Tower, 415 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Tel: (415) 591-6000
Fax: (415) 591-6091
[email protected]
[email protected]
4
Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 186-1 Filed 07/05/19 Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to the telephonic hearing held on July 3, 2019, the Court hereby issues the
1. Discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ equal protection and § 1985 claims may commence as of
2. Written Discovery
b) Defendants shall serve objections to any such written discovery requests and any
associated privilege log within seven days of service, and shall produce all
3. Depositions
b) Plaintiffs must obtain leave of Court to take more than five depositions of
Defendant Witnesses, and the Court shall grant leave upon a showing of good
cause.
c) Defendants reserve their right to object to any specific request for the deposition
deposition request.
4. Plaintiffs may issue third party subpoenas for documents and depositions, subject to the
5. Discovery Motions
presented to the Court in the form of a letter-brief not to exceed three pages in
length. Oppositions and replies shall also be submitted in the form of a letter-
b) Opposition letter-briefs shall be due within 2 days of service of the opening letter-
brief and replies shall be due within 1 day of service of the opposition letter-brief.
September 4, 2019.
2
Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 186-1 Filed 07/05/19 Page 3 of 3
7. The parties reserve the right to seek modification of this Scheduling Order and the
allowable scope of discovery based on any ongoing developments, including but not
limited to any specific efforts by the federal government to inquire about citizenship
The above schedule is HEREBY ENTERED this ____ day of July, 2019.
_______________________________________
The Honorable GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge