UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________________ CHRISTINE MILL S, RUNAKO BALONDEMU, GERA LDINE DUNCAN , P RISCILLA IJE OMAH, LAWRENCE P ERRY, WILLIAM ROWLAND, DAVID HUBBARD, C LIFTON K NIG HT, SHARON TAYLOR, and CHARLES MWALIMU, P laintif fs,
v. 1:04-CV -2205 (F JS/AK) JAMES HADLEY BIL LINGTON, Librarian, Lib rary of Congress, Defendan ts.

_________________________________________________ AP P EARANCES OF COUNSEL ROSE L EGAL ADV OCATES DAVID L. ROSE, ES Q. 1726 M Street, NW JOSHUA N. ROSE , ESQ . Suite 203 EARLENE W. ROS ENBERG, ESQ. Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorney s for Plaintiffs OF F ICE OF THE UNITED BEVERLY M. RUSSE LL, AUSA STATE S ATTO RNEY JULIA DOUDS, AUSA 555 4th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorney s for De fenda

nt SCULLIN, S enior Judge ORDER Currently befor e the Court are De fenda nt's motion to dismis s or, in the alter native, for summary judgme nt, seeDkt. No. 172, and De fenda nt's motion to strike the dec larations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defenda nt's motion to dismis s, seeDkt. No. 192. The Court hea

rd ora l argument in support of, and in opposition to, these motions onMarc h 5, 2013. Consist ent with the Court' s discussion with counsel at the conc lusion of oral

argument, the followingconstitutes the Court's written resolution of these motions. According ly , the Court hereby ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion t o dismiss or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt is DENIED insofar a s that motion i s based on f ailure to e x haust administrative
reme dies; and the Court fur ther ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion t o dismiss or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt is DENIED insofar a s that motion i s based on the doc trine of res judicata ; and the Court further ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion t o dismiss or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt is DENIED w ithout prejudice and w ith leave to r enewinsofar a s that motion i s based on the doctrine of

collater al estoppel. De fenda nt may rene w its moti on to dismi ss and/or for summary

judgme nt on this ground, if a ppropriate , in oppositi on to Plainti ff' s motion for class
cer tification; and the Court fur ther ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion t o dismiss or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt is DENIED w ithout prejudice and w ith leave to r enewinsofar a s that motion i s based on f

ailure to state a

claim. Def

endant may

rene w its moti on to dismi ss and/or for summary judgme nt on this ground, if a ppropriate , in oppositi on to Plainti ffs' motion for class ce rtification; and the Court fur

ther ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion for sanctions, which see ks relief in the form of the dismiss al of Plaintiffs' class cla ims, seeDkt. No. 120, and De fenda nt's motion for le ave to f

ile a supplemental memora

ndum in support of that motion, seeDkt. No. 191, ar e DENIED ; and the -2-Court further ORDERS that the pendingdiscovery disputes reg arding

class discove ry , including but not limi ted to Def

endant' s motion for a protec tive order , seeDkt. No. 207, Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of Ma g istrate Judge K ay' s May 28, 2010 Orde r, seeDkt. No. 211, and De fenda nt's motion to s trike the de clar ations that Plainti ffs filed in support of their opposition to Defenda nt's motion to di smiss or, in the alternative, f or summary

judgme nt, seeDkt. No. 192, ar e re fer red to Mag istrate Judge K ay

for r esolution; and the Court further ORDERS that, within ten day s of the date on which Mag istrate Judge K ay resolves the outstanding c lass discovery issues, the parties sha ll complete said discover y ; and the Court further ORDERS that, within fortyday s of the date on which Mag istrate Judge K ay resolves the outstanding c lass discovery issues, Plainti ffs shall file the ir motion for class c ertification; and the Court further ORDERS that Def

endant sha ll file its opposi tion to P laintiffs' motion for class
cer tification within fou rte en day s of the date on which Plaintiffs file their motion for c lass
cer tification; and the Court fur ther ORDERS that the par

ties shall not file any

further paper s either in support of or in opposition t o Plaintiffs' motion for c lass cer tification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Marc h 12, 2013 Sy rac use, Ne w York

-3-