Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ARIZONA CONTRACTORS

ASSOCIATION, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; ARIZONA

EMPLOYERS FOR IMMIGRATION

REFORM, INC., an Arizona non-profit

corporation; CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, a Washington

D.C. non-profit corporation; ARIZONA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, an

Arizona non-profit corporation;

ARIZONA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; ARIZONA FARM

BUREAU FEDERATION, an Arizona

non-profit corporation; ARIZONA

RESTAURANT AND HOSPITALITY

ASSOCIATION, an Arizona non-profit

corporation; ASSOCIATED MINORITY

CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, an

Arizona non-profit limited liability

company; ARIZONA ROOFING

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, an

Arizona non-profit corporation;

NATIONAL ROOFING

CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois not-for-profit corporation;

WAKE UP ARIZONA! INC., an

Arizona non-profit corporation; and

ARIZONA LANDSCAPE

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION,

INC., an Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-02496-PHX-NVW (lead)

No. CV07-02518-PHX-NVW (member)

ORDER

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

CRISS CANDELARIA, Apache County

Attorney; ED RHEINHEIMER, Cochise

County Attorney; TERENCE C.

HANER, Coconino County Attorney;

DAISY FLORES, Gila County Attorney;

KENNY ANGLE, Graham County

Attorney; DEREK D. RAPIER, Greenlee

County Attorney; MARTIN BRANNAN,

LaPaz County Attorney; ANDREW P.

THOMAS, Maricopa County Attorney;

MATTHEW J. SMITH, Mohave County

Attorney; JAMES CURRIER, Navajo

County Attorney; BARBARA

LAWALL, Pima County Attorney;

JAMES P. WALSH, Pinal County

Attorney; GEORGE SILVA, Santa Cruz

County Attorney; SHEILA POLK,

Yavapai County Attorney; JON SMITH,

Yuma County Attorney; TERRY

GODDARD, Attorney General of the

State of Arizona; and FIDELIS V.

GARCIA, Director of the Arizona

Registrar of Contractors,

Defendants. 

VALLE DEL SOL, INC.; CHICANOS

POR LA CAUSA, INC.; and SOMOS

AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TERRY GODDARD, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the State

of Arizona; GALE GARRIOTT, in his

official capacity as the Director of the

Arizona Department of Revenue; and

ANDREW THOMAS, in his official

capacity as Maricopa County Attorney,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Before the court is Defendant Thomas’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert

Designation of Marc Rosenblum (doc. # 85) and Objection to Plaintiffs’

“Supplementation” of Rosenblum Designation (doc. # 95). The Motion and the Objection

will be denied. Prof. Rosenblum’s opinions will not be excluded for untimely disclosure,

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

and other adjustments to the schedule will be permitted to assure that Defendants have

minimally fair time to respond to them.

Also before the court is the Stipulation (doc. # 96) of all parties. Paragraph 2, by

which Plaintiffs withdraw certain discovery requests concerning Plaintiffs’ standing

based upon actual or assumed concession of standing, will be accepted, assuming Mr.

Hall joins in it. Paragraph 1, which extends all Defendants’ time to file a responsive

pleading to February 15, 2008, will be rejected. Due to the public importance of these

proceedings and the need for a final decision from this court and from the appellate courts

as soon as possible, the court contemplates bringing this action to a final judgment with

utmost speed. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation would frustrate that objective.

I. Disclosure of Prof. Rosenblum’s Opinion Testimony

At the hearing on December 18, 2007, the parties agreed to a preliminary

injunction schedule for further disclosures and briefing for a January 16, 2008 hearing

date. The court was concerned that the schedule was too optimistic but accepted it

because the parties agreed to it. The major goals in scheduling the preliminary injunction

hearing were these:

1. Enough pre-hearing disclosure of contentions and evidence to avoid unfair surprise

at the hearing that would prevent adequate response from opposing parties and

deprive the court of hearing both sides of fact issues. 

2. Adequate opportunity for both sides to make their record for appeal.

3. A sufficient record for the court to resolve important issues that might affect the

decision whether to grant a preliminary injunction and to allow a more meaningful

appeal.

4. Prompt hearing and decision of Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction,

unless the parties agree to a continuance in order to consolidate the hearing with

trial on the merits.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

In light of the emergency nature of preliminary injunction proceedings, the court

did not intend the schedule to have the firmness of a usual pre-trial discovery schedule,

certainly not if it resulted in exclusion of evidence thought important to any party and

presented with diligence and in good faith. The court contemplated that adjustments in

the schedule, and in the hearing date, might become necessary. Plaintiffs’ late disclosure

of Prof. Rosenblum’s testimony is justified in the circumstances and warrants adjustment

to the agreed schedule. 

Defendants also may have additional time to present their responding disclosure. 

It may be that the legal briefing should be extended, or perhaps done before the full

disclosure of Defendants’ counter-evidence. The parties will be directed to confer on

adjustment of the schedule, failing which the parties may submit their own proposals for

the court’s consideration for extending the time for Defendants’ disclosure.

A brief adjustment to the preliminary injunction hearing date might be considered

as a consequence of Plaintiffs’ late disclosure of Prof. Rosenblum’s opinions. The court

does not prejudge whether such an adjustment is necessary and would prefer to avoid it. 

The court is not disposed to any extension beyond a few days or a week unless the parties

agree to it.

II. A Final Decision on the Merits Will Be Accelerated 

Even if the preliminary injunction hearing proceeds, the benefit to the parties, to

the public, and to the court of appeals of a preliminary injunction ruling is less than the

benefit of a final decision. Plaintiffs bear an additional burden for preliminary injunction

that they do not bear for a final injunction: showing a balance of hardships in their favor,

the necessary strength of which varies with other factors. On preliminary injunction,

incomplete evidence and preparation is usually unavoidable, which risks disadvantaging

any party but can be more of a risk to the party with the burdens of proof and persuasion. 

The speed with which the motion for preliminary injunction is being advanced may

disadvantage both sides in making a record of the factual contexts of the legislative

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

purposes they each contend support their positions and which could be helpful to this

court and the appellate courts. Though a ruling on preliminary injunction is appealable,

the standard of appellate review is deferential in some respects, and such appeals are

often discouraged. See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750,

752–53 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Review of . . . preliminary injunction[s] is . . . much more

limited than review of . . . permanent injunction[s]” and therefore “in many cases, appeal

of district courts’ preliminary injunctions will result in unnecessary delay to the parties

and inefficient use of judicial resources.”). The standard of appellate review from a final

judgment is de novo except for findings of fact on disputed evidence. Rule 52(a).

For these reasons, the case will be brought on for final decision on the merits as

swiftly as possible, even if a preliminary injunction has been granted or denied. The

parties may wish to agree to a brief extension of the preliminary injunction hearing so it

can be consolidated with a trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). If the parties do not so

agree, the court will order a prompt pre-trial schedule under its own authority, after

hearing the views of all parties. 

Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation (doc. # 96) will be denied. If any Defendant files a

Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the motion should address why the motion should not be

deferred to trial, as permitted in Rule 12(d), and an immediate answer required.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant Thomas’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Designation of Marc

Rosenblum (doc. # 85) and Objection to Plaintiffs’ “Supplementation” of Rosenblum

Designation (doc. # 95) are denied. The Motion to Expedite Ruling (doc. # 94) is

granted.

2. Defendants may have additional time to present their disclosure. The

parties shall confer on adjustment of the schedule and submit a stipulation if they can

agree, failing which the parties shall submit their own proposals for the court’s

consideration.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

3. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation (doc. # 96), which would extend the time for

Defendants to file responsive pleadings to February 15, 2008, is denied. For the

convenience of counsel, the time for all Defendants to answer is extended to January 11,

2008.

4. Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation (doc. # 96), which withdraws certain

discovery requests, is accepted on the assumption that Mr. Hall joins in it. If he does not,

he shall inform the court immediately, and this provision of this order will be vacated. 

The parties shall inform the court immediately whether the Motion for Protective Order

Regarding John Doe Members (doc. # 13) is now moot in light of Paragraph 2 of the

Stipulation (doc. # 96).

5. The parties shall confer and report to the court by January 11, 2008, an

agreed schedule, or separate schedules if they cannot agree, for bringing this case to final

trial on the merits as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that evidence presented at the

preliminary injunction hearing need not be repeated. Rule 65(a)(2).

6. Due to a scheduling conflict for the Special Proceedings Courtroom, the

hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction is continued to January 16, 2008,

at 1:30 p.m. This is a time change only.

7. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery and to Waive Rule 26(d) (doc. #

7) is granted. The parties may proceed expeditiously with appropriate discovery in light

of the exigent nature of this case.

DATED this 4th day of January 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 100 Filed 01/04/08 Page 6 of 6