Court filing
Defendants' Response to Request for Clarification — East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr (N.D. Cal.)
Filed November 2, 2020 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr; one of 69 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-11-02 |
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST · Doc. 119 · 2020-11-02 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump, Case No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST
1
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
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 307-4293
Email: Erez.R.Reuveni@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST
)
Donald J. Trump, President of the United )
States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Defendants oppose Proposed Intervenors’ (“intervenors”) request for clarification seeking
permission to file a third brief in support of their motion to intervene and for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction. Should the Court nevertheless clarify that intervenors may file a
third brief, Defendants respectfully request that they be granted an opportunity to file a sur-reply
addressing matters raised for the first time in intervenors’ third brief to which the government has
not had an opportunity to respond.
Intervenors filed a single, combined motion styled as a “Motion for Leave to Intervene and
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” on October 16, 2020. See
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 119 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump, Case No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST
2
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
Dkt. 95. This Court granted the temporary restraining order on October 17, 2020, and ordered that
“Defendants’ opposition to Proposed Intervenors’ motion for a preliminary injunction is due
October 23, 2020,” that “Proposed Intervenors’ reply is due October 26, 2020,” and that “[a]
hearing on this motion will take place on Thursday, October 29, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.”
On October 23, 2020, Defendants filed their opposition, a document titled “Opposition to
Motions to Intervene and for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Preventing
Removal” that addressed intervenors’ likelihood of success on the merits of their motion to
intervene and entitlement to an injunction in response to their single omnibus filing. Dkt. 110.
Plaintiffs responded to that opposition on October 26. Dkt. 112. Although they titled their motion
a “Reply Memorandum and Points of Law in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction,” that motion responded to the government’s opposition in full, including whether
intervenors satisfy Rule 24(a) or 24(b) so as to be entitled to intervention as of right or to
permissive intervention, Dkt. 112 at 4-13, and whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over intervenors’ claims, both for purposes of permitting intervention or for purposes of granting
a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 112 at 9-12. Accordingly, intervenors have filed an opening and a
reply brief, and Defendants have filed a single opposition brief, and briefing is considered closed.
See Local Rule 7-3((d) (“Once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be
filed without prior Court approval.”).
Intervenors apparently believe that because they styled their reply as a “Reply
Memorandum and Points of Law in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction,”
without explicitly mentioning the term “Intervention,” that therefore they have not yet filed a reply
in support to their motion for intervention, which they believe they are entitled to file by November
6, 2020. But they filed one omnibus motion—to which Defendants responded—and then replied
in full to the arguments Defendants made in their opposition brief concerning the motion to
intervene, and so have already submitted their reply brief.1 A third brief would unfairly prejudice
Defendants by providing intervenors an opportunity to file a brief addressing issues raised in
1 Plaintiffs requested supplemental briefing at oral argument, a request that this Court did not grant.
That request indicates that Plaintiffs believed that they had filed all the briefing in the matter to
which they were entitled.
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 119 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump, Case No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST
3
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
Defendants’ opposition that intervenors consciously chose not to address in their reply brief, or to
address issues raised at oral argument to which Defendants have had no opportunity to respond.
Should the Court nevertheless issue an order clarifying that intervenors may file a third
brief, Defendants respectfully request that they be granted an opportunity to file a sur-reply
addressing matters raised for the first time in intervenors’ third brief or in response to the oral
argument before the Court on October 29, 2020, that the government has not had an opportunity
to respond to.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
Acting Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
By: /s/ Erez Reuveni
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 307-4293
Email: Erez.R.Reuveni@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 2, 2020
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 119 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump, Case No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of for the Northern District of California
by using the CM/ECF system. Counsel in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will
be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Erez Reuveni
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 119 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.344869.119.0.pdf
- Size
- 109,520 bytes
- SHA-256
- 755dca467c78f3dcacfe66f74fcc2eefae349b132ef72006cdf0a81f40a03ae4
- Original
- archive.org