CCSF’s Oppo. to Motion for Reconsideration; 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 17-00485

N:\CXLIT\LI2017\171027\01194429.docx 

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH, State Bar #122517 Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755 

TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775

MOLLIE M. LEE, State Bar #251404 

SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303

MATTHEW S. LEE, State Bar #295247

NEHA GUPTA, State Bar #308864 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of United States 

Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General of the United States, DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO’S OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF THE COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL 25, 2017 

Date Filed: January 31, 2017 

Trial Date: April 23, 2018 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 103 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 4
 

CCSF’s Oppo. to Motion for Reconsideration; 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 3:17-cv-00485

1 N:\CXLIT\LI2017\171027\01194429.docx

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 

I. Introduction 

Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order 

of April 25, 2017 (“Motion”) at 6:16 pm on May 22, 2017, requesting that the Court decide this 

Motion by May 23, 2017. Motion at 2-3, fn.1. Defendants argue that the Motion should be granted 

under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), but the Court should reject this Motion because Defendants failed to act 

with reasonable diligence and, in the alternative, because they failed to show any change in material 

facts or law. 

The Court should also reject Defendants’ implicit request to file a Motion for Clarification of 

the Court’s Order. Defendants characterize their underlying Motion as a “Motion for Reconsideration, 

or in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court’s Order of April 25, 2017,” but Defendants cite no 

authority for seeking clarification through a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. 

In filing this Opposition, Plaintiff does not waive or concede any arguments that may be made 

regarding the underlying Motion for Reconsideration or the Attorney General Memorandum regarding 

Implementation of Executive Order 13768. 

II. Argument 

A. Defendants have not acted with reasonable diligence. 

The Court should deny Defendants’ Motion because they have not met the threshold 

requirement of acting with reasonable diligence in bringing this motion. Local Rule 7-9(b) requires 

that “[t]he moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion,” as well 

as satisfy one of the factors set forth in subsections 7-9(b)(1), (2), or (3). 

Defendants’ Motion is based on the Attorney General Memorandum regarding Implementation 

of Executive Order 13768, which is dated May 22, 2017. Although the timing of this Memorandum 

was wholly within Defendants’ control, Defendants waited to issue it until one business day before 

their statutory deadline to file a Motion for Reconsideration. 

Defendants nowhere explain their unreasonable delay in issuing the Memorandum. They did 

not issue it promptly after the Executive Order issued on January 25, 2017, instead choosing to make 

public statements that directly contradict the interpretation now espoused in the Memorandum. See, 

e.g., Order Granting the County of Santa Clara’s and City and County of San Francisco’s Motions to 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 103 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 4
 

CCSF’s Oppo. to Motion for Reconsideration; 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 3:17-cv-00485

2 N:\CXLIT\LI2017\171027\01194429.docx

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 

Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 (April 25, 2017) (“Order”) at 3 (noting that “[t]he 

President has called [the Executive Order] ‘a weapon’ to use against jurisdictions that disagree with 

his preferred policies of immigration enforcement.”). They did not issue the Memorandum after 

Plaintiff filed its complaint in this matter on January 31, 2017. And they did not issue the 

Memorandum during briefing or hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Instead, 

Defendants waited to issue the Memorandum—and file a Motion for Reconsideration based on the 

Memorandum—until a full 27 days after the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a 

Preliminary Injunction, and 117 days after the President issued the Executive Order. This is not acting 

with reasonable diligence, and the Motion should be denied on that basis alone. 

B. Defendants have not shown a change in material facts or law. 

The Motion should also be denied because it fails to satisfy any of the specific factors 

established by Local Rule 7-9(b) for granting a Motion for Leave to File A Motion for 

Reconsideration. Defendants make mention of two of these factors but do not explain how they meet 

them. The Memorandum is not “a material difference in fact or law . . . from that which was presented 

to the Court before the entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought,” Local 

Rule 7-9(b)(1). Nor is it “emergence of new material facts or a change of law after the time of such 

order,” id. at (b)(2). 

As an initial matter, Defendants have not cited any case where, as here, the newly presented 

facts or law upon which the movant relies to justify its request for reconsideration was entirely within 

that party’s control. Moreover, as Defendants concede, “the AG Memorandum is consistent with the 

position taken by government counsel at oral argument.” Motion at 6. The Court thoroughly 

considered, and rejected, this attempt to rewrite the Executive Order in its Order of April 25. As the 

Court recognized, 

With regards to the merits of the Government’s construction, the Order is not 

readily susceptible to the Government’s narrow interpretation. Indeed, “[t]o read 

[the Order] as the Government desires requires rewriting, not just 

reinterpretation.” U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 481 (2010). 

// 

// 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 103 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 4
 

CCSF’s Oppo. to Motion for Reconsideration; 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 3:17-cv-00485

3 N:\CXLIT\LI2017\171027\01194429.docx

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 

Order at 14. Because it is the Executive Order itself that is unconstitutional, an AG Memorandum that 

repeats an interpretation of the Executive Order that this Court has already rejected is not a change in 

material facts or law that warrants granting them leave to seek reconsideration. 

III. Conclusion 

Defendants come to Court with an emergency of their own making. Defendants filed their 

Motion at 6:16 pm on May 22, 2017, and requested that the Court decide the Motion by May 23, 2017. 

This leaves Plaintiff no meaningful time to oppose, and the Court almost no time to consider the 

Motion. Further, the Motion fails for two independent reasons: 1) Defendants have failed to act 

diligently, and 2) Defendants have not shown “a material difference in fact or law” or “emergence of 

new material facts or a change of law.” Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion. 

Dated: May 23, 2017 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

RONALD FLYNN 

JESSE C. SMITH 

YVONNE R. MERÉ 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN 

TARA STEELEY 

MOLLIE M. LEE 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

MATTHEW S. LEE 

NEHA GUPTA

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ Mollie M. Lee 

MOLLIE M. LEE 

 Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 103 Filed 05/23/17 Page 4 of 4