Ex-parte Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery — Denied!

JUDGE CARTER’S DENIAL, SEEMS TO INDICATE “NOT SO FAST — ORLY!”

by John Charlton

(Oct. 8, 2009) — Federal Judge David O. Carter, has denied Attorney Orly Taitz’s request for a lifting of his stay order on discovery, which she had filed yesterday evening, following the publication of his Minute Order.

The case in question is Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Barack Hussein Obama et al.; the court, the Federal District Court, Southern Division of California.  Dr. Taitz is lead counsel for the Plaintiffs; her motion was official entitled an Ex-parte Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery, and was featured in an article yesterday, by The Post & Email.

The decision of Judge Carter to finalize the dates for the trial had led to the speculation of the Plantiffs’ that Carter would allow the case to go forward, either by denying in part or in toto the Motion to Dismiss the case, proffered by the lead counsel for the Defense, acting Attorney General George S. Cardona, or by reserving judgment on legal issues to later in the trial.

This quick and forthright reply from Judge Carter seems to indicate that he will be taking his time deciding the Motion to Dismiss; and that his Minute Order does not signify that he is going to grant discovery before he formally rules on the Motion to Dismiss, which is currently before his bench.

Judge Carter’s in-chambers order reads as follows:

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Stay of Discovery.

Pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the stay of discovery shall remain in place. See
Dkt. 66.  Should the discovery period be insufficient given the scheduling order in place, the parties
may file for an extension of the discovery period.

The Ex Parte Motion is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

The use of the word “should” in this in-chamber order indicates that the speculation that the case will go forward is in doubt.

Dr. Taitz’ ex-parte application explained clearly that the schedule of dates for the case would soon be too quick to accomodate the statutory time requirements on requesting depositions; hence her request for a relief from the stay order.

Judge Carter’s “should” here can only be explained by the fact that he sees his decision regarding the Motion to Dismiss as possibly making the scheduling of dates moot — that is, of granting the Motion to Dismiss on all counts, and thus denying standing to all plaintiffs.

It must be stressed, that Judge Carter’s actions might indicate nothing, one way or another, other than his desire to show complete impartiality to each side, prior to his ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

Time will tell.

Many commentators on the Internet believe that Judge Carter’s expression of confidence that the case will go forward, will be proven by his ruling against the Motion to Dismiss, which marshalled constitutionally weak arguments against the standing of the Plaintiffs.

Cardona’s Motion to Dismiss was editorialized at The Post & Email earlier last month.