Motaghedi v. Blinken

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SEYED AMIN SAM MOTAGHEDI, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01466-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT 13 TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING v. ORDER, VACATING HEARING, AND 14 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Defendants. (Docs. 66, 68) _____________________________________/ 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendants withheld adjudications of case-by-case waivers of Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats. (See Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs raise claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as claims for mandamus relief, deprivation of procedural due process, and Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment. (See generally Doc. 1.)

26 The Court entered a Scheduling Order on June 29, 2020. (Doc. 66.) In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered, among other things, that Defendants file on the Court’s docket the certified Administrative Record on or before August 6, 2020. (See id.) 1 Defendants did not file the certified Administrative Record on the on August 6, 2020.1 (See Docket.) Instead, according to Plaintiffs, Defendants sent a “series of 13 or 14 separate emails” purportedly containing the Administrative Record to counsel on August 6 and August 7, 2020.

4 (See Doc. 68 at 2.) On August 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel contending that the Administrative Record they received via email was incomplete. (See id.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendants’ deadline for filing of the certified Administrative Record on the Court’s docket expired on August 6, 2020. Defendants did not seek to modify the Scheduling Order prior to August 6, 2020; they did not file the Administrative Record by that date; and they have they offered any explanation for their failure to comply with the Scheduling Order.2 12 Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted).

16 Disregard of the terms of the scheduling order “undermine[s] the court's ability to control its docket, disrupt[s] the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent and the cavalier.” Id. 19 III. ORDER 20 Defendants are therefore ORDERED to comply with the Scheduling Order and file the certified Administrative Record on the Court’s docket by no later than September 8, 2020.

22 Defendants are CAUTIONED that the failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

26 1 Instead, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss four days later, on August 10, 2020, asserting that the claims of all-but- one of the plaintiffs are moot, and that judicial economy favored staying the litigation as to the remaining plaintiff. (See Doc. 67.)

2 Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion does not address their failure to comply with the Scheduling Order.

28 Rather, it rather requests that the motion be “deferred until after the district court rules on the United States’ motion to 1 Because the certified Administrative Record is not before it, the Court cannot at this time evaluate whether what was received by Plaintiffs via email constitutes the “complete administrative record.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 68) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed, if appropriate, following the filing of the certified Administrative Record on the docket. The hearing on the motion, currently set for September 9, 2020, is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: September 2, 2020 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE