WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al
| WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP |
| EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PAMELA J. BONDI, PETER B. HEGSETH, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., LINDA M. MCMAHON, DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, TULSI GABBARD, JOHN L. RATCLIFFE, LEE M. ZELDIN, KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, CHRIS WRIGHT, SCOTT BESSENT, LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, BROOKE L. ROLLINS, HOWARD W. LUTNICK, SCOTT TURNER, KELLY LOEFFLER, JAMIESON GREER, DOUGLAS J. BURGUM, SEAN DUFFY, MARK T. UYEDA, ANDREW N. FERGUSON, COKE MORGAN STEWART and ANDREA R. LUCAS |
| 1:2025cv00917 |
| March 28, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Richard J Leon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING ON TRO PROCEEDINGS before Judge Richard J. Leon held on March 28, 2025; Page Numbers: 1-49. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Email: William_Zaremba@dcd.uscourts.gov. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the #Transcript Order FormFor the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 4/18/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/28/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/26/2025.(Zaremba, William) |
Filing 10
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part #3 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See attached Memorandum Order for details. Consistent with the attached Memorandum Order, the parties must file a joint status report proposing an expedited briefing schedule by 4:00 PM on March 31, 2025. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 03/28/2025. (lcrjl3)
|
| Filing 9 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE Re: U.S. Attorney & U.S. Attorney General filed by WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP. (Attachments: #1 Summons U.S. Attorney General)(Clement, Paul) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS (52) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: #1 Notice and Consent)(zmtm) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Lawson on behalf of All Defendants (Lawson, Richard) |
| Filing 6 ERRATA by WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP re #1 Complaint,,,,. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Complaint)(Clement, Paul) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph John DeMott on behalf of WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (DeMott, Joseph) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Elizabeth Murphy on behalf of WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (Murphy, Erin) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration of Bruce M. Berman, #3 Exhibit Local Rule 65.1 Certification, #4 Text of Proposed Order)(Clement, Paul) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP. Case related to Case No. 1:25-cv-716, 1:25-cv-916. (Clement, Paul) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-11573634) filed by WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Summons, #5 Summons, #6 Summons, #7 Summons, #8 Summons, #9 Summons, #10 Summons, #11 Summons, #12 Summons, #13 Summons, #14 Summons, #15 Summons, #16 Summons, #17 Summons, #18 Summons, #19 Summons, #20 Summons, #21 Summons, #22 Summons, #23 Summons, #24 Summons, #25 Summons, #26 Summons, #27 Summons, #28 Summons, #29 Summons, #30 Summons, #31 Summons, #32 Summons, #33 Summons, #34 Summons, #35 Summons, #36 Summons, #37 Summons, #38 Summons, #39 Summons, #40 Summons, #41 Summons, #42 Summons, #43 Summons, #44 Summons, #45 Summons, #46 Summons, #47 Summons, #48 Summons, #49 Summons, #50 Summons, #51 Summons, #52 Summons, #53 Summons, #54 Summons, #55 Summons)(Clement, Paul) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. (zmtm) |
| NOTICE OF NEW CASE ERROR regarding #1 Complaint,,,,. The following error(s) need correction: Noncompliance with LCvR 5.1(c). Please file a Notice of Errata stating the error and attach the corrected initiating pleading to include the name & full residence address of each party and file using the event Errata. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE is by close of business today. This case will not proceed any further until all errors are satisfied. (zmtm) |
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of plaintiff's #1 Complaint in this case, which was directly, rather than randomly, assigned to the undersigned Judge, this Court concludes that plaintiff's #2 Notice of Related Case ("Notice"), indicating that this case is "related" to two other cases brought by different plaintiffs against similar federal government defendants, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep't of Justice et al., 25-cv-716 (BAH), and Jenner & Block v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 25-cv-916, which case was also filed today and also directed to be reassigned, see Min. Order, 25-cv-916 (Mar. 28, 2025), is erroneous, since these cases are not related in a manner contemplated by D.D.C. LCvR 40.5(a)(3) (defining related civil cases) and 40.5(c)(1) (allowing direct assignment of "new case to the judge to whom the oldest related case is assigned"). The legal issues involved in all three cases appear to be substantially similar, making the instinct to keep and decide the cases together understandable and even tempting for preservation of judicial resources by allowing a single judge to become familiar with applicable legal principles in these cases. Nonetheless, the cases involve different issues of fact and arise from different events, and thus strict adherence to the rules requires assignment through the normal random assignment procedures of this District. See D.D.C. LCvR 40.5(a)(3). LCvR 40.5(a)(3) provides that cases may properly be deemed related when, as pertinent here, they "(ii) involve common issues of fact, or (iii) grow out of the same event or transaction..." This case and Perkins Coie do not involve common issues of fact or arise out of the same event or transaction. Executive Order ("E.O.") No. 14230, at issue in Perkins Coie, cites, as justification for the punitive measures applied to all employees of the targeted firm, the President's dislike of Perkins Coie's representation of his political opponent (i.e., "Hillary Clinton"), Exec. Order No. 14230 1, 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 11, 2025), and Perkins Coie's representation, sometimes pro bono, of clients seeking enforcement of voting rights (i.e., "Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors... to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws"; referring to work for what the E.O. calls "anti-democratic election changes"), id. 1, 3, and rights to continue service as transgender individuals in the U.S. Military (i.e., "Perkins Coie LLP has filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration, including one designed to reduce military readiness"), see Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Perkins Coie LLP (Mar. 6, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adresses-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/. In contrast to the focus on Perkins Coie's provision of legal services to clients disliked by the President as the sole reasons for E.O. No. 14230, the E.O. at issue in this newly assigned case, see Addressing Risks from WilmerHale ("WilmerHale E.O.") (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-wilmerhale/ (not yet published in the Federal Register), cites as justification for the punitive measures on all employees of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ("WilmerHale"), both (1) the firm's representation of clients and issues disfavored by the President, including immigration and voting rights, see id. 1, and (2) the professional tasks undertaken by current employees of WilmerHale--including Aaron Zebley and James Quarles--during a time when they were not employed by the firm and worked on the Special Counsel investigation, led by former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller, id. Although both law firms are being targeted in similar ways in these separate Executive Orders, the facts of each case differ: the punitive measures imposed on Perkins Coie arise solely from the firm's representation of clients disliked by the President, while the punitive measures imposed on WilmerHale in this new case arise, in part, from the firm's representation of clients disliked by the President but also, in part, from professional work performed by current WilmerHale employees while employed by the U.S. Department of Justice and not affiliated with the firm. While, as noted, the reasons for relating the new case brought by WilmerHale with the case brought by Perkins Coie are understandable, since both challenge Executive Orders carrying similar punitive measures and thereby raise similar questions of law, strict adherence to the normal process of random case assignment is crucial to ensure "fair and equal distribution of cases to all judges, avoid[] public perception or appearance of favoritism in assignments, and reduce[] opportunities for judge-shopping," Tripp v. Exec. Off. of President, 196 F.R.D. 201, 202 (D.D.C. 2000), and the reasons given to justify these orders do not involve the same underlying events or facts in the way contemplated by LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign this case randomly, pursuant to D.D.C. LCvR 40.3, since the exception provided for "related case" assignment in D.D.C. LCvR 40.5 does not apply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 28, 2025. (lcbah2)
|
| Case Randomly Reassigned to Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Beryl A. Howell is no longer assigned to the case. (zjd) |
| NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing, re: #3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order set for 3/28/2025 at 4:30 PM in Courtroom 18 (In Person) before Judge Richard J. Leon. (smc) |
| Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held on 3/28/2025 before Judge Richard J. Leon: re #3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Oral arguments heard and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 3/31/2025. Court Reporter: William Zaremba. (smc) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
