`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 16-1170 (RBW)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`)
`WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF
` )
`TECHNOLOGY WORKERS,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`)
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`)
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
`)
`
`HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`and
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
`)
`
`MANUFACTURERS, et al.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
` Intervenor-Defendants.
`____________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons to be set forth in the Memorandum Opinion to be issued by the Court
`
`ORDER
`
`within the next sixty days, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will deny the plaintiff’s
`
`motion for summary judgment, grant the defendants’ and the intervenor-defendants’ motions for
`
`summary judgment, and deny the plaintiff’s motion to strike. Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 56, is
`
`DENIED. It is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Defendants’ Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`ECF No. 69, is GRANTED. It is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Intervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 73, is
`
`GRANTED. It is further
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01170-RBW Document 96 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Brief Amici Curiae of Institutions of
`
`Higher Education and Objections to Evidence Submitted in the Brief, ECF No. 93, is DENIED.
`
`It is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for December 1, 2020, is
`
`VACATED. It is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that this Order is not a final Order subject to appeal.1
`
`SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2020.
`
`
`
`REGGIE B. WALTON
`United States District Judge
`
`
`1 To ensure that there is no confusion about the import of this Order, the Court notes for the benefit of the litigants
`that this Order is not a “final decision” as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018). See St. Marks Place Hous.
`Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 610 F.3d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[A]ppeals may be taken (with certain
`exceptions not relevant here) only from ‘final decisions.’”); id. at 80 (concluding that “district courts can choose
`when to decide their cases,” and when an order states that it “shall not be deemed . . . final,” the Court should be
`“take[n] . . . at its word”). Rather, this Order reflects the Court’s disposition of the motions, which was reached only
`after carefully and thoughtfully considering the arguments of the parties as set forth in their submissions, conducting
`a thorough review of the record, and drafting a Memorandum Opinion that explains the Court’s rationale in
`appropriate detail. With only non-substantive tasks (e.g., reviewing citations to ensure conformity with the
`Bluebook) remaining before the Memorandum Opinion can be released to the parties and the public, this matter no
`longer requires this Court’s “judicial attention,” and therefore the Court finds it appropriate to issue this Order
`expressing its disposition of the matter. See id. (questioning the “propriety” of resolving a motion which “still
`require[s] judicial attention”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
