Ryan Noah Shapiro, et al., Appellees v. United States Department of Justice, Appellant

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Ryan Noah Shapiro, et al., Appellees v. United States Department of Justice, Appellant

No. 16-5226

Decided: December 21, 2016

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to hold in abeyance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion to expedite, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion to dismiss or for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the statement of intent to utilize a deferred joint appendix and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be referred to the merits panel to which this appeal is assigned. The parties are directed to address in their briefs the issues presented in the motion to dismiss rather than incorporate those arguments by reference. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite be denied. Appellees have not shown “strongly compelling” reasons warranting expedition. D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2016). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant file a joint appendix on the same date as its opening brief, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a) and (b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 30(a) and (b). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be granted and that this case be held in abeyance pending further order of the court. The parties are directed to file motions to govern further proceedings within 30 days of the district court's decision on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court.

Per Curiam