Court filing

Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing — Wall v. CDC

No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI · Doc. 231 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The Federal Defendants' motion to stay summary judgment briefing, filed February 18, 2022 as Document 231 in Wall v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Case No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services ask the court to stay briefing on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 230) until they answer the Amended Complaint, due February 22, 2022, and until the court rules on his motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 191). They argue that briefing before the pleadings are set would be inefficient and that the two motions overlap. The Local Rule 3.01(g) certification states that the plaintiff opposes the motion and co-defendants GOAA and CFRTA do not. It is signed by Andrew F. Freidah of the Department of Justice.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 231 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 6654

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

LUCAS WALL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
et al.,

Defendants.

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

Although the Federal Defendants’ answer to the Amended Complaint has not

yet come due, Plaintiff has nevertheless filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF

No. 230, raising many of the same issues presented by his fully briefed motion for a

preliminary injunction, ECF No. 191. To ensure that this case proceeds in an orderly

manner, with a minimum of duplicated effort, the Federal Defendants (the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS)) respectfully move the Court to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment until (1) Defendants file their response to the Amended

Complaint, which is currently due on February 22, 2022; and (2) the Court has ruled

on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In light of the Federal Defendants’

March 10, 2022, deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, see

1
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 231 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 6655

M.D. Fla. L.R. 3.01(c) (opposition to a summary judgment motion is due twenty-one

days after service of motion)1, they respectfully request that the Court rule on this

motion at its earliest convenience.

This Court “has the inherent authority to manage and control its own docket

‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Equity Lifestyle

Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing and Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1242, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009)

(quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 41 (1991)). That authority includes

the “discretion [to] manag[e] the filings of summary judgment motions.” Bey v.

American Honda Fin. Servs. Corp., No. 8:17-cv-759-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 11017804, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2017).

The Court should exercise that discretion here to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s

summary judgment motion, for two reasons. First, it would be inefficient for the

parties to brief summary judgment “prior to the pleadings being set,” and a stay of

briefing would prevent the parties from “spilling ink” on summary judgment

prematurely. Order Adopting Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 187, at 15 n.5 (quotation

omitted). Second, a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction would

provide helpful guidance about Plaintiff’s claims to both parties. There is significant

overlap between Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion for a

1
Although Plaintiff’s motion is stamped as being filed on February 16, 2022, it was not placed
on the electronic docket until the morning of February 17, 2022, at which point Defendants
received the electronic notice of the filing generated by CM/ECF. Under Local Rule 3.01(c),
the time to respond to a motion does not begin tolling until “service” of a motion. Therefore,
February 17 is the correct starting point for determining the due date of Defendants’ response.

2
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 231 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 6656

preliminary injunction. The Court’s ruling would therefore assist the parties in

providing a succinct and efficient presentation of the issues at summary judgment.

Any delay arising from this stay will not prejudice the Plaintiff. The Court can

award Plaintiff whatever preliminary relief he is entitled to through an order on

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. There is no sound basis for expediting

summary judgment while a preliminary injunction motion is pending.

Accordingly, the Court should grant the Federal Defendants’ motion and stay

briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

LOCAL RULE 3.01(g) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), on February 17 and February 18, 2022, counsel

for the Federal Defendants conferred with Plaintiff and co-defendants Greater

Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) and Central Florida Regional Transport

Authority (CFRTA) by e-mail. Plaintiff reported that he opposes the relief requested

in this motion. Co-defendants GOAA and CFRTA do not oppose the motion.

Dated: February 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

ERIC B. BECKENHAUER
Assistant Branch Director

By: /s/ Andrew F. Freidah
MARCIA K. SOWLES
Senior Trial Counsel

3
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 231 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 6657

STEPHEN M. PEZZI
ANDREW F. FREIDAH
JOHNNY H. WALKER
MICHAEL J. GERARDI
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
1100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202-305-0879
Email: andrew.f.freidah@usdoj.gov

Counsel for the Federal Defendants

4
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 231 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 6658

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has been authorized by the Court to

use the CM/ECF system. ECF No. 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff will receive service of

this filing through the CM/ECF system.

/s/Andrew F. Freidah
ANDREW F. FREIDAH
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.231.0.pdf
Size: 71,721 bytes
SHA-256: 0f361f600dcc92dcefa02b3866f1f3551c9e1909a3060bf1324b257537593bc3
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.231.0.pdf
Original: archive.org