Wasae v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01714
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 ABDUL WASAE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01714-KKL 10 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY 11 v. DISCOVERY AND ORDER

12 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Abdul Wasae and Defendants, through their respective counsel, pursuant to 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and 17 move to stay discovery, including any initial scheduling deadlines (Dkt. No. 6), until after this 18 Court decides Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 9). Good cause exists to stay discovery 19 until the pending dispositive motion is decided. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Wasae brings this case pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus 22 Act to compel Defendants to adjudicate his non-immigrant visa application. Wasae executed a 23 visa application at the U.S. Consulate in Calgary, Canada, on March 12, 2024. A consular 24 officer refused his visa application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and requested additional 1 information. Wasae has submitted the information. Currently, Wasae’s visa application remains 2 refused. 3 On December 1, 2024, the Court entered the order setting the following initial discovery

4 dates: 5 Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: January 8, 2025 6 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): January 22, 2025 7 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan: January 29, 2025 8 Dkt. No. 6, at 1. 9 The parties conducted the Rule 26 conference on January 8, 2025. During the 10 conference, counsel discussed Defendants’ intent to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and 11 Wasae’s intent to oppose such a motion. Thereafter, Defendants have moved to dismiss the 12 complaint. Dkt. No. 9. The motion is noted for February 19, 2025. The two issues presented in 13 the motion is (1) whether Wasae has claimed an outstanding mandatory, nondiscretionary duty

14 that Defendants have failed to perform, and, if so, (2) whether Defendants have unreasonably 15 delayed performing that duty. 16 ARGUMENT 17 A stay would conserve the Court’s and parties’ resources while the Court considers the pending dispositive motion. 18 This Court has wide discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. 19 Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th 20 Cir. 1987). Here, an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss would be dispositive of this 21 case. A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a motion is pending pursuant 22 to its inherent authority over discovery matters and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (court may deny or limit discovery upon a showing of good 24 1 cause). Stays are appropriate where it “furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and litigants.” 2 Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (Federal 3 Rules should be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure

4 the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”). 5 In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be 6 affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 7 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 8 1962)). Those interests include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of 9 a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 10 and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 11 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (quoting 12 CMAX, 300 F.3d at 268). 13 In this case, the factors set forth in Lockyear weigh in favor of granting the stay.

14 Considering the first factor, a stay will not cause damage to either party. If Defendants’ motion 15 is granted, this case will be dismissed. In the alternative, if the Court determines that Defendants 16 have failed to perform a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty and have unreasonably delayed 17 performing that duty, any remaining issues in this case will be extremely limited in scope. The 18 second factor also favors a stay to conserve judicial resources and the parties’ resources. 19 Defendants anticipate that this Court may need to decide whether discovery is available under 20 the APA prior to discovery ensuing. The third factor, the orderly course of justice and judicial 21 economy, also weighs in favor of a stay. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, if granted, will lead to 22 the resolution of this matter. Judicial economy will be furthered if the Court is not burdened by

23 discovery motions that may be obviated by a ruling on the motion to dismiss. 24 1 Stays have been found to be justified where a pending motion is potentially dispositive of 2 the entire case and is not dependent on additional discovery. See e.g., Roberts v. Khounphixay, 3 Case No. 2:18-cv-00746-MJP-BAT, 2018 WL 5013780, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2018)

4 (staying discovery pending ruling on motion for judgment on the pleadings). Defendants’ 5 motion to dismiss will be fully briefed and ready for this Court’s determination next month. 6 Conserving judicial resources, avoiding unnecessary discovery disputes, and preventing the 7 requirement for the parties to engage in discovery that may become unnecessary by virtue of the 8 pending dispositive motion weigh in favor of staying the initial scheduling deadlines and 9 discovery here. 10 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2025.

11 Respectfully submitted, 12 TESSA M. GORMAN NIMER LAW LLC 13 United States Attorney s/ Minda A. Thorward 14 s/ Michelle R. Lambert JENNIFER E. NIMER, (61962) MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 6500 Emerald Pkwy, Suite 100 15 Assistant United States Attorney Dublin, OH 43016 United States Attorney’s Office Phone: 614-927-0550 16 Western District of Washington Email: jnimer@nimerlaw.com 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 17 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Attorney for Plaintiff Phone: (253) 428-3824 18 Fax: (253) 428-3826 Email: michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov 19 Attorneys for Defendants 20 I certify that this memorandum contains 847 21 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.

24 1 ORDER 2 Discovery, including the initial discovery deadlines are stayed pending the Court’s 3 decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 9). If the motion is denied, the parties

4 shall propose a new initial scheduling deadlines within 14 days of the order. 5 6 DATED this 24th day of January, 2025. 7 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24