But AG wants delay in plebiscite suit
A YIGO man suing the local government in federal court wants his case to proceed to trial despite a magistrate judge’s recommendation for dismissal, but the Attorney General's Office wants a delay until that matter is resolved.
Court documents were filed yesterday in the District Court of Guam by an attorney for Arnold “Dave” Davis in response to the AGO's motion to stay discovery, which requests the court to suspend the trial setting and other dates ordered by the court until the issue of Davis’ objection to a recommendation of a dismissal of his case is determined by the chief judge.
Just last week, the AGO filed the motion to stay discovery, reminding the court of the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case is due to be dismissed, “because the plaintiff has failed to articulate a proper basis for the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.”
The motion, filed by Assistant Attorney General Robert M. Weinberg, further stated the issues presented by the government’s motion to dismiss and Davis’ objections to the report and recommendations “easily satisfy both prongs of the analysis suggested by the district court for the Eastern District of California when determining whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of a motion potentially dispositive of the entire case.”
Opposition
In opposition, Davis’ attorney, J. Christian Adams, pointed out the government’s motion was filed merely two days after Davis had provided the court with extensive supplemental disclosures.
In other words, Adams wrote, “after plaintiff diligently prepared for trial by collecting evidence and providing such evidence to the defendants, defendants now seek to freeze the process, blocking plaintiffs from further diligently pursuing this case and providing defendants a respite from diligently preparing a defense.”
Adams then argued it would be unfair if the court granted the government’s motion because Davis has been complying with deadlines while the government seeks an excuse.
“Granting the motion would produce the severely prejudicial result of seeing the plaintiff comply with expert deadlines and exchange a completed expert report, while the defendants bask in the luxury of frozen time, blissfully unburdened by the need to diligently exchange an expert report which should have been completed on Aug. 31, 2012,” Adams stated. “It is manifestly unfair for the plaintiff to comply with the deadlines in the scheduling order and then the defendants enjoy peace and contemplation while time stands still.”
Adams went on to say that Davis has been preparing for a trial in April 2013, “and to stay discovery in this matter will result in an unjust and severe prejudice to the defendants.”
Davis filed a class action suit in November of last year, claiming he was denied from registering in the Decolonization Registry which was to be used for a plebiscite on Guam’s political status. He filed his complaint against the government of Guam and the Guam Election Commission alleging racial discrimination because he did not have the ancestral ties of a “native inhabitant” required to register. Months later, Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibuan issued a report and recommendation of a dismissal of the case because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.
