UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) KAREN YADIRA RODRIGUEZ ) GUTIERREZ, on behalf of herself and ) on behalf of her child, J.G., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 18-1958 (PLF) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion [Dkt. No. 14] for limited discovery in advance of the September 20, 2018 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from separating plaintiff J.G. from his mother and grandmother pursuant to the government’s zero-tolerance immigration policy. 1 The Court also has before it defendants’ opposition [Dkt. No. 21] to the motion and defendants’ motion to supplement their opposition [Dkt. No. 24]. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ papers, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny the motion for limited discovery. As to the parties’ arguments regarding the relevant legal standard, the Court finds persuasive the reasoning of Judge John D. Bates in Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88 1 As the Court has previously explained, the Court intends to treat plaintiffs’ motion [Dkt. No. 4] for a temporary restraining order as a motion for a preliminary injunction. See September 5, 2018 Order [Dkt. No. 11]. (D.D.C. 2014). The reasonableness standard is the more appropriate standard for assessing motions for expedited discovery, particularly in cases where the expedited discovery is related to a motion for a preliminary injunction. See id. at 97-98. Applying the reasonableness standard here, and in view of the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion for limited discovery. First, plaintiffs seek to issue interrogatories to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) to identify the field specialist responsible for the facility where J.G. is being held. See Motion ¶ 7. Because defendants have already identified Richard Zapata as the relevant Federal Field Specialist, the request is denied. See Opposition at 2. Second, plaintiffs seek the following discovery from non-party Crittenton Services for Children and Families (“Crittenton”), which operates the facility where J.G. is being held: (1) a corporate deposition of the Crittenton representative with knowledge of the events surrounding J.G.’s detention at Crittenton, see Motion ¶¶ 4, 6; and (2) a third-party subpoena to Crittenton for all emails relating to J.G. and the contract between Crittenton and the government with respect to the housing of J.G., see id. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs contend that they need this information to “fully understand what has happened to J.G. while in Crittenton’s care,” see id. ¶ 4, and to ascertain whether Crittenton has “the authority to release J.G.,” see id. ¶¶ 5-6. Defendants have acknowledged, however, that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and not Crittenton, has the authority to release J.G. See Opposition at 2. Furthermore, the allegations in the 66-page complaint [Dkt. No. 1] and the affidavit of plaintiff Karen ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals