UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, * 

 * 

Plaintiff, * 

 * 

 v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (C) 

 * 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

 * 

 Defendant. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY FUTURE DEADLINES

 NOW COMES Plaintiff Robert Hopkins (“Hopkins”) to move this Court to stay all future 

deadlines in this case pending resolution of his Motion for Status Conference, Dkt. #13 (filed 

May 9, 2023), and a forthcoming motion to compel Defendant to process his undersigned 

counsel for temporary access to classified information. Defendant opposes this Motion. 

 Hopkins has good cause to request this relief, The relevant factual history of this dispute 

was largely set forth in detail in Dkt. #13 and will not be repeated herein. Since filing that 

motion, the undersigned served Defendant with deposition notices on 12 May 2023, and 

Defendant filed a response to Hopkins’s motion later that same day. That response contained 

Defendant’s first formal objection to mediation, as well as Defendant’s first definitive statement 

that it would not under any circumstances discuss the question of the undersigned’s access to 

classified information during mediation. (Def.’s. Resp. Pl.’s Mot. Status Conf., ECF No. 13, Dkt. 

#14, at 4 (filed May 12, 2023) (“If Plaintiffs’ counsel disagrees and believes that he should be 

granted a security clearance for access to classified information, then that issue also is not 

appropriate for mediation, as the granting of a security clearance for access to classified 

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 15 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 379
2

information is within the discretion of the Executive Branch.”) (emphasis added).) Now that 

Defendant has staked out the position that it will not negotiate this critical issue, which Hopkins 

expected to be a central part of the mediation, Hopkins is left with no choice but to formally 

move this Court to compel Defendant to begin the process, as he anticipated might be the case. 

(See Pl.’s Unopposed Mot. Stat. Conf., Dkt. #13, at 10 (filed May 9, 2023) (“Hopkins asks the 

Court to convene a status conference, in which he will ask not only for mediation to commence 

immediately, but also for an order directing Defendant to process the undersigned for an LSA to 

allow him to represent his client in both the mediation and the litigation (which, had Defendant 

agreed to enter into mediation earlier, would have been the first topic of discussion).”).)

Because this briefing is expected to take some time and Defendant effectively delayed 

revealing its unwillingness to mediate the core issue of the Complaint until the eleventh hour, 

Hopkins respectfully maintains that it is infeasible to continue forward in this case without first 

resolving this key dispute. The undersigned needs to know if he can conduct classified discovery 

before the end of the discovery period. He needs to have access to all discoverable information, 

including any classified information if so authorized, before either party files a dispositive 

motion. He needs to participate in discussions regarding Defendant’s censorship of Hopkins’s 

manuscripts, which Defendant currently refuses to allow, before either party files a dispositive 

motion. And he needs to know the scope of mediation—and if Defendant will be required to 

participate—before the end of the mediation period. The Court should accordingly stay the 

following deadlines until it has resolved these two motions:

• 15 June 2023, 3:00 PM – Motions for summary judgment due

• 15 June 2023, 3:00 PM – Completion of mediation

• 11 September 2023, 3:00 PM – Completion of discovery

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 15 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 380
3

• 11 September 2023, 3:00 PM – Motions in limine due

• 2 October 2023, 9:00 AM – Trial

Defendant’s counsel initially consented to this Motion, but only under the condition that 

it would stay the beginning of discovery as well, stating that “Defendants do not consent to a 

motion to stay if it does not include a stay of discovery.” When the undersigned clarified that this 

Motion would only ask to stay future deadlines but not discovery or mediation itself, 

Defendant’s counsel further stated, “Defendants do not agree to begin mediation while the 

motion to compel is pending, even if the deadline for completing mediation is stayed,” which 

itself was yet another reversal of its position that “Defendants never stated, however, that they 

were unwilling to engage in mediation.” (Dkt. #14 at 3.) Defendant’s counsel then asked the 

undersigned to represent its position as follows: “Defendants oppose [the] motion and intend to 

file an opposition and combined cross motion to amend the scheduling order.” In short, 

Defendant effectively agrees with Hopkins that the five deadlines listed above should be stayed, 

but it also wants to use this Motion to avoid its discovery and mediation obligations as well.

The Court should grant this Motion over Defendant’s objection and deny its forthcoming 

cross-motion. It should stay the five deadlines identified above without affecting the parties 

respective abilities to engage in discovery and mediation.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 15 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 381
4 

Date: May 18, 2023 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

 Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

 N.D. Tex. Bar #984704DC 

 National Security Counselors 

 4702 Levada Terrace

 Rockville, MD 20853 

 301-728-5908 

 240-681-2189 fax 

 Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 15 Filed 05/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 382