Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coal. v. Dist. of Columbia, 07-cv-1495 (RCL)

• Decision Date: 23 October 2012
• Docket Number: 07-cv-1495 (RCL)
• Parties: ACT NOW TO STOP WAR AND END RACISM COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

ACT NOW TO STOP WAR AND END RACISM COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Defendant.

07-cv-1495 (RCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dated: October 23, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Stay Briefing on Attorney's Fees, Oct. 22, 2012, ECF No. 73. Upon consideration of the District's motion and the record herein, the Court DENIES the District's motion.

Recently, this Court granted a motion by the plaintiff for a protective order and reasonable expenses. Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coal. v. Dist. of Columbia (ANSWER IV), __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 4712980 (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2012) (ECF Nos. 67 & 68). The Court found that the District propounded discovery requests in violation of the Scheduling Order without substantial justification, and awarded reasonable costs to the plaintiff. Id. The Court's Order set a briefing schedule on attorney's fees, ordering the plaintiff to "submit a petition for such reasonable expenses" within fourteen days of the Order. Order, Oct. 4, 2012, ECF No. 67. The District has fourteen days after service of the fee petition to file an opposition, if any. Within seven days of service of the opposition, the plaintiff may file a reply. Id.

The District objected to the Court's decision in ANSWER IV and filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to Strike, Or in the Alternative to Stay Payment of Sanctions, Oct. 12, 2012, ECF No. 70. That motion for reconsideration is pending. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed its

Page 2

petition for attorney's fees pursuant to ANSWER IV. Pl.'s Mot. for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Court's Oct. 4, 2012 Mem. Op. & Order, Oct. 18, 2012, ECF No. 72. According to the Court's Order, the District has until November 1, 2012 to file any opposition thereto.

The District now asks the Court to stay briefing on the plaintiff's fee petition pending disposition of its unresolved Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 73. The District claims that a stay is appropriate to avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources, because if the Court grants the District's reconsideration motion, no briefing on attorney's fees will be necessary. Id. at 4.

The District is correct that it is well within the discretion of the Court to decide whether to issue a stay. Id. at 3-4 (citing Doe v. Sipper, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2012 WL 2371423, *1 (D.D.C. Jun. 25, 2012)). The District is correct that a Court must balance the competing interests when deciding whether to issue a stay. Id. at 4 (citing Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 353 F. Supp. 515, 517 (D.D.C. 1973)). The District is also correct that the "[p]laintiffs [sic] have an interest in the prompt resolution of their suit and an award of attorney's fees and costs as sanctions, per the Court's previous decision." Id. This interest outweighs the...