IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

DREAM DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA 

MAJORITY EDUCATION FUND, 

ORGANIZE FLORIDA EDUCATION 

FUND, ZEBRA COALITION, ACACIA 

WILLIAMS, BIANCA MARIA BAEZ, 

MURRAY HELLER, PAULINA 

HERNANDEZ MORALES, CELCIO 

EDUARDO ROMERO, and SHEILA 

YOUNG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as 

Governor of the State of Florida, 

LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity 

as Florida Secretary of State, and 

FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING 

COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-67-RH-GRJ 

STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

Defendants, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Secretary of State Laurel M. 

Lee (“State Defendants”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), move 

to consolidate this action with the recently-filed Nielsen v. DeSantis, No.: 4:20-cv00236-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), and request assistance from the Court in discussing the 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

alignment of deadlines and other matters to firm up the controversy at the Court’s 

Rule 16 pretrial conference on May 22, 2020. See Williams ECF No. 48. State 

Defendants are simultaneously filing a similar motion in Case No. 4:20-cv-00236-

RH-GRJ. 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

The Court has discretion to consolidate actions that involve “common 

question[s] of law and fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Both this action and Nielsen

challenge several Florida statutes governing vote-by-mail ballots under various 

provisions of the federal constitution and Voting Rights Act, in light of the COVID19 pandemic. Compare Nielsen (ECF No. 1) (Complaint), with Williams (ECF No. 

47) (Second Amended Complaint). Substantially the same parties are involved in 

both actions as well. Indeed, Plaintiffs in Williams recently moved for leave to add 

the 67 Supervisors of Election that are already Defendants in Nielsen. The Nielsen

Plaintiffs even recognize the similarity of the actions, filing their Local Rule 5.6 

Notice of Similar Case, which resulted in the Clerk reassigning Nielsen to the Judge 

presiding over Williams. Common questions of law and fact permeate both actions 

and therefore consolidation would further judicial economy. 

Though the issues in both actions are similar, however, the deadlines are not. 

The parties in Williams are preparing for a preliminary injunction hearing set for 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

July1

 and are engaged in discovery, while the Nielsen Complaint was filed recently. 

But the Williams Plaintiffs recently sought leave to amend their Complaint once 

again (ECF No. 44), as well as the postponement of other deadlines in the case (ECF 

No. 45). This second amendment is a continuation of the Williams’ Plaintiffs’ 

reshuffling of their claims and parties since the inception of the action. Thus, 

although Williams predates Nielsen, the issues are no more crystalized here than 

there. See Williams (ECF No. 1) (targeting the March Presidential Preference 

Primary); (ECF No. 4) (seeking temporary restraining order ahead of election); (ECF 

No. 16) (renewing motion post-election); (ECF No. 17) (dismissal by Plaintiff

Spillman); (ECF No. 35) (targeting August and November Elections); (ECF No. 37) 

(dismissal by Plaintiff Ray Winters); (ECF No. 38) (dismissal by Plaintiff Kathleen 

Winters); (ECF No. 44) (motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint); (ECF 

No. 45) (requesting the extension of multiple deadlines). 

Given the numerous and evolving claims, it seems the schedules, and perhaps 

even claims, in both actions can be aligned. State Defendants therefore request, to 

the extent the Court was not already intending, that matters relating to consolidation 

 1

 The preliminary injunction hearing was originally set to be telephonic and 

held on July 28, but was recently changed to an in-person hearing in Gainesville and 

jury trial set for July 20. See Williams (ECF No. 42). The scheduling of a jury trial 

appears to be a clerical error, but the issue could be addressed at the May 22 pretrial 

conference. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

of the cases could be discussed during the Court’s May 22 preliminary Rule 16 

pretrial conference. See Williams (ECF No. 48). 

Respectfully submitted on May 19, 2020. 

JOSEPH W. JACQUOT 

(FBN 189715) 

General Counsel 

joe.jacquot@eog.myflorida.com 

NICHOLAS A. PRIMROSE 

(FBN 104804) 

Deputy General Counsel 

nicholas.primrose@eog.myflorida.com 

JOSHUA PRATT (FBN 119347) 

Assistant General Counsel 

joshua.pratt@eog.myflorida.com 

Executive Office of the Governor 

400 S. Monroe St., PL-5 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Counsel for Florida Governor Ron 

DeSantis

BRADLEY R. MCVAY (FBN 79034) 

General Counsel 

brad.mcvay@dos.myflorida.com 

ASHLEY E. DAVIS (FBN 48032) 

Deputy General Counsel 

ashley.davis@dos.myflorida.com 

Florida Department Of State 

R.A. Gray Building Suite, 100 

500 South Bronough Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 

Telephone: (850) 245-6536 

Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 

/s/ Tara R. Price 

GEORGE N. MEROS, JR. 

(FBN 263321) 

george.meros@hklaw.com 

TARA R. PRICE (FBN 98073) 

tara.price@hklaw.com 

Holland & Knight LLP 

315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Telephone: (850) 224-7000 

Facsimile: (850) 224-8832 

Counsel for the Florida Secretary of 

State, Laurel M. Lee 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), Counsel for the Secretary consulted with 

counsel for the Williams Plaintiffs, who stated they will not oppose a motion to 

consolidate so long as it does not result in delaying the trial/hearing date and so long 

as, if the Court requires consolidated briefing, State Defendants would not oppose a 

corresponding extension of the relevant page limits. The undersigned understands 

that the Secretary’s separate counsel in Nielsen communicated with the respective 

counsel for the Nielsen Plaintiffs, who do not object to consolidation. The Nielsen

Plaintiffs, however, request that if the cases are consolidated, that the Nielsen

Plaintiffs be permitted to file briefs separately from the Williams Plaintiffs in 

connection with any preliminary injunction or summary judgment motions or preor post-trial briefs. 

Though not required under Local Rule 7.1(B), counsel for the Secretary also 

alerted counsel for the Attorney General and Ronald Labasky, who is general 

counsel for the Florida Supervisors of Elections, Inc., regarding State Defendants’ 

motion to consolidate. 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) CERTIFICATION

 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(F), this Motion contains 537 words, excluding 

the case style, signature block, and any certificate of service. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

to all counsel of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system on the 19th of May, 

2020. 

/s/ Tara R. Price 

Attorney 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 74 Filed 05/19/20 Page 6 of 6