Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Declaration Kravis, NAACP et al. v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-01996 (D.D.C.), Doc. 36-11 (August 11, 2020)

Declaration Kravis, NAACP et al. v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-01996 (D.D.C.), Doc. 36-11 (August 11, 2020)

Summary

Declaration of Jonathan Kravis, an attorney with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel of record for plaintiffs, in NAACP et al. v. DeVos, Case No. 1:20-cv-01996 (DLF), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Document 36-11, filed August 11, 2020. It states that on August 3, 2020 Kravis spoke by phone with Assistant United States Attorney Johnny Walker and proposed an expedited briefing schedule for cross-motions for partial summary judgment. It states that on August 5, 2020 Federal Programs Trial Attorney Jennifer Ricketts said the government was not willing to agree to that schedule. It also states that the plaintiffs would not object to a three-day extension of the government's deadline to respond to a preliminary injunction motion.

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

Cite this document

“Declaration Kravis, NAACP et al. v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-01996 (D.D.C.), Doc. 36-11 (August 11, 2020).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/declaration-kravis-naacp-et-al-v-devos-no-1-20-cv-01996-d-d-c-doc-36-1-fbe9ed2304/, SHA-256 766dc31c9e45336c88940082a2050f405010f2fe209ee4119ad343095bd54f75.

Full text

        Case 1:20-cv-01996-DLF Document 36-11 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 2




                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE                             Case No. 1:20-cv-01996 (DLF)
(NAACP), et al.,

                Plaintiffs,

        vs.

ELISABETH “BETSY” D. DEVOS, in her official
capacity as the United States Secretary of Education,
and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,

                Defendants.


 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN KRAVIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
               FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

        1.      My name is Jonathan Kravis. I am an attorney in the law firm of Munger, Tolles

& Olson LLP, counsel of record for plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. I have personal

knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called

upon to do so. I make this declaration in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunctive relief.

        2.      On Monday, August 3, 2020, I spoke by phone with Assistant United States

Attorney Johnny Walker about this case. In that conversation, I proposed a briefing schedule

that would allow the parties to file cross-motions for partial summary judgment on an expedited

basis. I explained that this proposal would allow the Court to resolve the purely legal question

raised by Counts One through Five of the Complaint, namely whether the Department of

Education lacked the legal authority to promulgate the regulation at issue. I noted that, under

this proposal, the plaintiffs would agree to defer the defendants’ deadline to answer the


                                                 1
             Case 1:20-cv-01996-DLF Document 36-11 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 2




complaint and file the administrative record while the parties prepared their partial summary

judgment motions. AUSA Walker told me that he would consider the proposal and respond in

the next few days.

         3.       On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, I spoke by phone with Federal Programs Trial

Attorney Jennifer Ricketts. In that conversation, I described the proposed expedited partial

summary judgment briefing schedule that I had previously explained to AUSA Walker. Trial

Attorney Ricketts told me that the government was not willing to agree to this proposed

schedule.

         4.       Trial Attorney Ricketts also asked, in the event the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a

preliminary injunction, whether the Plaintiffs would to a three-day extension of the government’s

deadline to respond to a preliminary injunction motion under Local Civil Rule 65.1(c). After

consulting with co-counsel, I responded that the Plaintiffs would not object to a three-day

extension of the deadline for a response, provided the extension did not interfere with the

scheduling of a hearing on the application within 21 days, as provided in Local Civil Rule

65.1(d).

         I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

August 11, 2020.



         .


                                                        JONATHAN KRAVIS




45379244.1                                          2

File and source

File
36-att11-declaration-kravis.pdf
Size
73,090 bytes
SHA-256
766dc31c9e45336c88940082a2050f405010f2fe209ee4119ad343095bd54f75
Our copy
36-att11-declaration-kravis.pdf
Original
storage.courtlistener.com
Back to top