Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1554

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232) Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754) 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309) Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 pschey@centerforhumanrights.org crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org Additional counsel listed next page Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

15 MARTIN R. ARANAS, et al., 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) -vs) ) ) JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the ) Department of Homeland Security; et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ )

SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:1555

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

Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas: PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714) Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112) 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249) Facsimile: (714) 541-5157 jgreenwald@publiclawcenter.org mashiku@publiclawcenter.org ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064) 184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-9710 Facsimile: (408) 287-0864 Email: bpangilinan@asianlawalliance.org Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon: LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469) Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931) 10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: 714-963-8951 Facsimile: 714-968-4948 gmanulkin@mgblaw.com reynatanner@yahoo.com

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:1556

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

STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division AUGUST FLENTJE Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General DAVID J. KLINE Director, Office of Immigration Litigation JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director JESI J. CARLSON (DC 975478) Senior Litigation Counsel P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-7037 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Email: jesi.j.carlson@usdoj.gov TIMOTHY M. BELSAN (KS 24112) Trial Attorney Attorneys for Defendants ///

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:1557

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

Paul D. Clement pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. Christopher Bartolomucci cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson nnelson@bancroftpllc.com Michael H. McGinley mmcginley@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-234-0090 (telephone) 202-234-2806 (facsimile) Of Counsel: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel William.Pittard@mail.house.gov Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-9700 (telephone) 202-226-1360 (facsimile) Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives ///

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:1558

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1

The parties submit the following joint report pursuant to Rule 26(f), Fed.R.Civ.P. and C.D. Cal. Loc. R. 26-1: I NATURE AND BASIS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES A. Plaintiffs claims.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging discrimination in the granting of benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq., against lawfully married couples solely because the spouses are of the same sex. Section 3(a) of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), bars federal agencies from recognizing marriages between spouses of the same sex, notwithstanding the lawfulness of those marriages under state law.1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants applying DOMA 3 to deny validly married bi-national couples benefits under the INA merely because the spouses happen to be of the same sex violates (1) the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the right to privacy and personal autonomy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

25 26 27 28

1 U.S.C. 7 provides: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:1559

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

B.

Defendants Position & Defenses

This case involves a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Plaintiffs challenge Section 3 of DOMA as it applies to the immigration rights of a married same-sex couple.2 The suit is brought by individual Plaintiffs Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez, and Jane DeLeons son, Martin Aranas (collectively, Plaintiffs or named Plaintiffs), and on behalf of the following proposed class: All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7, has refused or will refuse to recognize as spouses for purposes of conferring lawful status and related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Mot. for Class Certification at 3, ECF No. 13. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants application of Section 3 of DOMA in this case, as well as Defendants regulations,

Id. 2 As explained by the Attorney General on February 23, 2011, the Attorney General and the President have determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law, and the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The President, however, has instructed the Executive Branch, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive decision against the laws constitutionality. 28 U.S.C. 530D Letter from Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Feb. 23, 2011), at 5. See ECF No. 5-2.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:1560

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

policies and practices applying Section 3 against Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, are unlawful. Compl. at 29, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from: (1) deporting or removing immigrants denied lawful status solely because they and their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses are of the same sex, and from instructing or advising such immigrants to depart the United States; (2) denying employment authorization to immigrants lacking lawful permanent resident status solely because they and their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses are of the same sex; (3) denying immigration benefits under the INA solely because the immigrant or the non-immigrant has a spouse of the same sex; and (4) treating immigrants who have applied for benefits under the INA as acquiring unlawful presence thereby triggering the three- and ten-year bars to future lawful admission set out in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) solely because they and their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouses are of the same sex. Mot. Prelim. Inj. Mem. at 2-3, ECF No. 12.3 Finally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying U.S. citizen petitioners and their immigrant spouses applications for benefits under the INA solely because the lawfully married U.S. citizens and immigrant beneficiaries are of the same sex. Compl. at 29-30.

Plaintiffs have set forth three different requests for relief (in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in the Proposed Order). While the language is similar in many respects, it is not identical and does not request identical relief. Defendants citation is to the language set forth in the body of Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12, at 2-3).
3

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:1561

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 agree with Plaintiffs that Section 3 of DOMA discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. That is why the Attorney General informed the Speaker of the House of Representatives on February 23, 2011 that he would instruct the Department of Justice to stop defending Section 3s constitutionality. See February 23, 2011 Letter from U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker, John A. Boehner, Notice to the Court, Ex. 2, ECF No. 5-2. Indeed, Plaintiff Jane DeLeons consideration for an immigration benefit a discretionary waiver under 8 U.S.C. 1182(i) of her inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) has been curtailed because of the application of Section 3 of DOMA, a statute that violates the Constitution. But Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs efforts to obtain a broad preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Section 3 of DOMA for a nationwide class because they have not shown a likelihood that there are class members who are suffering imminent and irreparable harm. Further, such harm is even less likely in the time frame presented. The Supreme Court is currently considering petitions for certiorari in four cases involving the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. If the Court grants one of these petitions, the constitutionality of Section 3 will be resolved in the next year. Thus, the balance of harms and the public interest weigh in favor of foregoing a class-wide injunction at this time. Rather than a broad, class-wide injunction, the injury caused to Ms. DeLeon and the derivative injury caused to the other two named plaintiffs can and should be remediated by a final judgment on the merits that Section 3 of DOMA is 8

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67

Filed 10/27/12 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:1562

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

unconstitutional and that Ms. DeLeons waiver request must be considered without regard to DOMA. See Opposition to Pls Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 39. Moreover, Defendants believe Plaintiffs present motion for class certification should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the class definition is defective because it is overly broad and is not limited to individuals who have standing; and (2) the putative class fails to meet the requirements for class certification set forth in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Opposition to Pls Mot. for Class Certification, ECF No. 35. Lastly, consistent with the Attorney Generals direction, the Department of Justice will defend DOMA Section 3 against claims that do not involve the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and will defend against other challenges unrelated to DOMA. On that basis, on September 28, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, the Director of USCIS, and USCIS (collectively Defendants) moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Martin Aranas and Irma Rodriguez from this action for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants also moved to dismiss Plaintiffs substantive due process claim and Plaintiffs sex discrimination claim brought under the Immigration and Nationality Act at 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Defs. Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46. C. Intervenor-Defendants defenses

Intervenor-Defendants Defenses: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge DOMA Section 3. Even if plaintiffs had standing, DOMA Section 3 is constitutional under 9

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:1563

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

both the equal protection and substantive due process components of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See generally Memorandum of IntervenorDefendant . . . in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 9, 2012), attached at Tab 2 to Ex Parte Application of Intervenor-Defendant for Leave to File Two Separate Legal Memoranda, Each in Excess of 25 Pages (Oct. 9, 2012) (ECF No. 50). II POSSIBILITIES FOR SETTLEMENT A Plaintiffs position

Defendants agree that DOMA 3 unconstitutionally denies same-sex spouses equal protection of the law, but have indicated they will continue to follow 3 until the judicial branch delivers a definitive verdict against the laws constitutionality. Letter from Hon. E. Holder to Hon. J. Boehner, February 23, 2011, reprinted in Attachment 2 to [Defendants] Notice to Court, July 25, 2012 (Dkt. No. 47). Given this concession, plaintiffs believe settlement of this action all but certain should the U.S. Supreme Court disapprove DOMA 3, an outcome plaintiffs consider increasingly likely before post-appellate final judgment could issue in this matter. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558; 123 S.Ct. 2472; 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003); and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620; 116 S. Ct. 1620; 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996); Massachusetts v. United States HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). As explained in their pending motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs believe that immigrants who are prima facie eligible for lawful status but for DOMA 3 should be protected from irreparable injury via interim relief pending a definitive

10

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:1564

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

ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA 3. Plaintiffs have sought defendants agreement to such a plan, albeit as of yet without success. B. Defendants position

Defendants do not believe that further settlement discussions would be beneficial at this time. C Intervenors position

Intervenor-Defendant does not believe settlement in this case is possible because the constitutionality of federal statutes is at issue. III DISCOVERY PLAN A. Changes re: disclosures under Rule 26(a)

Plaintiffs Position: At this time plaintiffs propose no changes to the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Defendants Position: For the reasons set forth below, Defendants do not believe discovery should move forward at this time. Accordingly, Defendants object to providing initial disclosures until either 14 days after the Court has ruled on the pending dispositive motions (in the event that the litigation goes forward) or the Court rules that discovery should commence prior to that time, at which time the Defendants will serve initial disclosures 14 days after such an order. Defendants also request that the Court stay any other pretrial deadlines pending the outcome of the dispositive motions. 11

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:1565

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

B.

Subjects for discovery, discovery cut-off date, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited

Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs proposed to conduct discovery in two phases: In the first, plaintiffs propose to conduct discovery into the factual claims defendants raise in opposition to plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction and class certification.4 Defendants have thus far declined to cooperate in discovery, and plaintiffs intend to seek a court order requiring that defendants answer limited discovery prior to the time plaintiffs replies to defendants opposition to class certification and preliminary injunction are due, or latest prior to the hearing on plaintiffs pending motions. Plaintiffs propose a general discovery cutoff date of February 1, 2013, with the parties having 30 days from the date expert witnesses, if any, are identified, to conduct depositions of experts. Defendants position: As previously indicated, Defendants believe that any discovery should be stayed until the Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. Moreover, Defendants believe it is necessary to revisit the discovery cut-off deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs after the Court rules on the dispositive motions. As stated, even if the Court were to conclude that discovery may commence at this time,

On September 10, 2012, and September 25, 2012, plaintiffs served defendants with a notice of deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) and a first set of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents, respectively.
4

12

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:1566

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

the deadlines are far too short and would likely need to run at least until the summer of 2013. Intervenor-Defendants position: Because plaintiffs have insisted on commencing discovery, IntervenorDefendant intends to serve comprehensive written discovery requests on plaintiffs and the Executive Branch defendants by the end of October. Intervenor-Defendant will determine later whether any depositions are needed. Regarding Plaintiffs proposed discovery cutoff, Intervenor-Defendants position is that it is too early in this proceeding, with dispositive motions pending, to set a time for the close of discovery. At a minimum, Intervenor-Defendant believes that the discovery cut-off date proposed by Plaintiffs is too early. Accordingly, Intervenor-Defendant proposes that discovery end no earlier than April 30, 2012. Finally, Intervenor-Defendant does not agree with , and sees no need for, Plaintiffs proposed two-phase discovery approach. C. Issues re: discovery of electronically stored information

Plaintiffs anticipate no such issues at this time. Defendants position: Defendants do not believe this case should involve electronic discovery. However, Plaintiffs have indicated that they will likely want electronically stored information, which Defendants understand to mean documents that are stored or maintained in an electronic format. The parties have agreed to revisit the specifics concerning this issue when and if it becomes necessary. 13

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:1567

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

Intervenor-Defendants position: No position on this issue at this early stage of the case. Intervenor-Defendant reserves the right to revise its position as circumstances warrant. D. Claims of privilege

Plaintiffs anticipate no such claims at this time. Defendants position: Defendants will assert all appropriate objections and privileges to discovery requests at the appropriate time. To the extent such privileges are asserted with regard to requests for the production of documents, Defendants will provide an appropriate privilege log specifying any documents withheld or redacted for privilege and the specific privilege being invoked. The parties have agreed that the inadvertent production of information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, deliberative process privilege, law enforcement privileges, and/or any other applicable privileges (Privileged Information) will not constitute a waiver of any such privileges or protections. Promptly upon discovering that it has produced any Privileged Information, the producing party will notify the other party in writing and designate the inadvertently produced document on a privilege log. Upon receipt of such notice, the receiving party will not review such documents further (except for the purposes of identifying them for their return to the disclosing party and/or destruction) and will then either return all copies of the same to the producing party or, at the producing partys option, destroy them. 14

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:1568

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

Intervenor-Defendants position: Intervenor-Defendant proposes that the parties agree to return any privileged or work-product materials as soon as it is discovered they were produced and the receiving party or parties is/are notified of the disclosure by the producing party, without any need to show that production was inadvertent. Intervenor-Defendant further proposes that the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith concerning this and other issues that arise in this area. E. Changes in the limitations on discovery

At this time plaintiffs propose no changes to the limitations on discovery. Defendants position: As Defendants have stated above, any discovery should be stayed until the Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. Intervenor-Defendants position: No position on this issue at this early stage of the case. Intervenor-Defendant reserves the right to revise its position as circumstances warrant. F. Other discovery orders the court should issue

If discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG agree that a Stipulated Protective Order regarding confidentiality issues will be negotiated at the appropriate time. G. Other Issues:

Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG have agreed to permit the service of discovery requests by electronic mail, while still permitting an additional three days 15

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 16 of 23 Page ID #:1569

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

to be added to the date of service for responses to such discovery, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d). Defendants do not consent to the transfer of this case to a Magistrate Judge and believe the case should remain before the assigned District Court Judge. Defendants reserve the right to assert all appropriate objections to any and all discovery requests, to assert all appropriate privileges, and to update this document, as appropriate. IV COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE Plaintiffs, Defendants, and BLAG do not believe this a complex case within the meaning of Local Rule 26-1(a) or that any part of the part of the procedures of the Manual For Complex Litigation should be utilized in the management of this action. V MOTION SCHEDULE Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have already brought motions to dismiss which seek orders that could be dispositive or partially dispositive of plaintiffs instant claims. Plaintiffs position: Plaintiffs anticipate moving for summary judgment or partial summary adjudication shortly after the completion of discovery. Plaintiffs propose a cutoff date for dispositive motions of March 1, 2013. Defendants position: As Plaintiffs have indicated, there currently are four motions pending before this Court: (1) Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 12; (2) 16

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 17 of 23 Page ID #:1570

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

Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 13; (3) BLAGs Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 36; and (4) Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46. Defendants suggest revisiting the motion schedule upon the Courts ruling on the four pending motions. Intervenor-Defendants position: Intervenor-Defendant believes the Court should not establish a motions schedule at this time, but rather should revisit this issue, if necessary, after the Court resolves the pending motions to dismiss filed by Intervenor-Defendant and the Executive Branch defendants. VI ADR Pursuant to Local Rule 16-15, Plaintiffs position: Plaintiffs select ADR Procedures Nos. 1 or 2 (The parties shall appear before a neutral selected from the Court's Mediation Panel) as best suited to the circumstances of the case. Plaintiffs contend the ADR session should occur immediately. Defendants position: Defendants do not believe that ADR would be beneficial or result in a settlement of this matter at this time. If the Court determines that ADR is necessary, Defendants select ADR Procedure No. 1 (The parties shall appear before the magistrate judge assigned to the case for such settlement proceedings as the judge may conduct or direct). Intervenor-Defendants position: 17

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 18 of 23 Page ID #:1571

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

As noted above, Intervenor-Defendant does not believe settlement in this case is possible because the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. Accordingly, Intervenor-Defendant requests relief from L.R. 16-15 inasmuch as the Alternative Dispute Resolution process cannot result in resolution of this case. VII TRIAL ESTIMATE Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs believe this matter may be resolved by way of dispositive motions and that no trial will be required. Should trial prove necessary, plaintiffs preliminarily estimate needing three days to present their case in chief. Defendants position: Defendants do not believe that a trial is necessary to resolve the questions of law before this Court. Defendants believe that this case can be resolved through motions practice. Accordingly, to the extent the Court determines a trial to be necessary, Defendants suggest this issue should be addressed at a later date and have proposed no dates for a pretrial conference, trial estimate, or trial date. Intervenor-Defendants position: Given the early stage of the case and the fact that dispositive motions are pending, Intervenor-Defendant is not in a position to estimate trial length or provide a list of trial counsel at this time. Intervenor-Defendant will amend its position at an appropriate time should it become necessary.

18

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 19 of 23 Page ID #:1572

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

VIII ADDITIONAL PARTIES Plaintiffs Position: Depending on court rulings regarding standing, numerosity, etc., plaintiffs may move to join additional persons as proposed class representatives. Defendants position: Defendants do not have a position on this issue at this time. Intervenor-Defendants position: Intervenor-Defendant does not anticipate joining additional parties at this time. IX EXPERT WITNESSES Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiffs [or: The Parties] do not at this time anticipate calling expert witnesses. Should that change, plaintiffs propose that the disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) occur 90 days prior to the date this matter is set for trial. Defendants position: Defendants do not anticipate the need for expert discovery at this time. However, Defendants reserve their right to call such experts as necessary and believe this issue should be revisited if discovery moves forward. Intervenor-Defendants position: At this early stage of this case, Intervenor has not determined whether it may call any experts. It reserves its right to do so. Dated: October 17, 2012. CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holgun 19

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 20 of 23 Page ID #:1573

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 Dated: October 17, 2012

PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Marzouk Monica Ashiku ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin Reyna M. Tanner /s/ Peter A. Schey ________________ /s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________ Attorneys for Plaintiffs STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division AUGUST E. FLENTJE Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General DAVID J. KLINE Director, Office of Immigration Litigation JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director /s/ Jesi J. Carlson JESI J. CARLSON (DC 975478) Senior Litigation Counsel P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-7037 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Email: jesi.j.carlson@usdoj.gov TIMOTHY M. BELSAN Trial Attorney Attorneys for Defendants 20

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 21 of 23 Page ID #:1574

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 /// 21 Of Counsel: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov William Pittard, Depy General Counsel William.Pittard@mail.house.gov Christine Davenport, Sr. Asst Counsel Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-9700 (telephone) 202-226-1360 (facsimile) Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives Dated: October 17, 2012 Paul D. Clement pclement@bancroftpllc.com /s/ H. Christopher Bartolomucci H. Christopher Bartolomucci cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson nnelson@bancroftpllc.com Michael H. McGinley mmcginley@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-234-0090 (telephone) 202-234-2806 (facsimile)

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 22 of 23 Page ID #:1575

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 22

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 67 Filed 10/27/12 Page 23 of 23 Page ID #:1576

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 SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) I hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT REPORT with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system. Dated: October 17, 2012 /s/ ____________________ Peter Schey

23