Joint Motion to Stay 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JACE YARBROUGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE, et al., 

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 4:23-cv-876

JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT III

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Individual Capacity Defendant General B. Chance Saltzman (hereinafter “General 

Saltzman”); Plaintiff Jace Yarbrough (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Yarbrough”); and Official 

Capacity Defendants the United States Space Force, the United States Department of the Air Force, 

the Department of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, Frank Kendall, and General B. Chance Saltzman 

(hereinafter “the Official-Capacity Defendants”) hereby move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

26 and Local Rule CV 26(a) for an order staying all discovery and deadlines until the Court rules

on the motions to dismiss filed by General Saltzman and the Official-Capacity Defendants. In 

support of this motion, the parties would respectfully show the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 3, 2023. (Dkt. 1). The Official-Capacity 

Defendants were served on October 10. Counsel for General Saltzman accepted service on 

December 12, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that General Saltzman and the Official-Capacity Defendants 

violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 668
Joint Motion to Stay 2

seeks damages from General Saltzman in his individual capacity. See generally (Dkt. 1). He 

claims that the actions taken by the Official-Capacity Defendants exceeded their statutory 

authority, violated their own regulations, and amounted to arbitrary and capricious action and an 

abuse of discretion. Id. 

The Court granted two unopposed requests from the Official Capacity Defendants to 

extend their time to respond to the Complaint. (Dkts. 22, 26). On February 1, 2024, the OfficialCapacity Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in which they argue that Plaintiff’s claims should 

be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. See 

generally (Dkt. 23). On February 5, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to 

extend his time to respond to the Official Capacity Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See generally 

(Dkt. 26). On February 6, 2024, the Court entered an order setting a deadline for mandatory 

disclosures and scheduling an in-person initial conference for March 26, 2024. (Dkt. 27). 

On February 12, 2024, General Saltzman filed a motion to dismiss in which he argues, in 

part, that the Court lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims and 

that General Saltzman is entitled to Qualified Immunity. See generally (Dkt. 28). On February 

15, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend his time to respond to General 

Saltzman’s motion to dismiss. See generally (Dkt. 30). 

ARGUMENT

The Court has discretion to stay discovery for “good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

Good cause exists when the party from whom discovery is sought shows that it would suffer 

“annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense” absent a stay. Id. The Court

has “broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery” until it assures itself that it has 

jurisdiction and addresses preliminary questions that may dispose of the case. Petrus v. Bowen, 

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 669
Joint Motion to Stay 3

833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987). A stay may therefore be appropriate when the disposition of a 

motion to dismiss might preclude the need for discovery altogether, thus saving time and expense. 

See Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 (5th Cir. 1990).

A stay of discovery may be particularly justified “in actions against the federal government, 

where uncontrolled discovery poses a special threat and compelling public policy reasons support 

stringent limitations on discovery pending the resolution of threshold jurisdictional questions.” 

Dynamic Image Techs., Inc. v. United States, 221 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir. 2000). The Fifth Circuit 

has previously approved of a stay in discovery when the defendant moved to dismiss and argued 

that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Smith v. Potter, 400 Fed. Appx. 

806 (5th Cir. 2010). And in the context of qualified immunity, the Fifth Circuit specifically 

directed courts “not [to] permit discovery—‘cabined or otherwise’—against immunity-asserting 

defendants before it has determined plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to overcome the 

defense.” Carswell v. Camp, 37 F.4th 1062, 1067 (5th Cir. 2022); see also L. R. CV-26(a). 

In his Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #28), General Saltzman argues that he is immune from suit. 

The Official Capacity Defendants likewise raise a threshold defense in their Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt. #23). In light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinions in Smith and Carswell, and given that compelling 

General Saltzman—a four-star general and the head of the U.S. Space Force—or the other highranking military defendants to participate in discovery would divert crucial agency resources, all 

discovery and other deadlines should be stayed until the Court has ruled on both the General 

Saltzman’s and on the Official Capacity Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, General Saltzman, Plaintiff Jace Yarbrough, and the Official Capacity 

Defendants respectfully request that this Court stay all discovery and deadlines in this case until 

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 670
Joint Motion to Stay 4

the Court has had the opportunity to rule on both General Saltzman’s and the Official-Capacity 

Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Civil Division

C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO, JR. 

Director, Torts Branch

ANDREA W. MCCARTHY

Deputy Director, Torts Branch

/s/ Shmuel Bushwick_____

SHMUEL BUSHWICK

Trial Attorney

New York Reg. No. 5268271

New Jersey Reg. No. 073632013

Torts Branch, Civil Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Phone: (202) 305-0401

Fax: (202) 616-4314

E-mail: Shmuel.bushwick@usdoj.gov

Counsel for General B. Chance Saltzman

in his Individual Capacity

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

CARLOTTA P. WELLS

Assistant Branch Director

/s/ Robert W. Meyer 

ROBERT W. MEYER

New York Bar No. 5942842

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 671
Joint Motion to Stay 5

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 305-0872

Email: robert.w.meyer@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the Official Capacity Defendants

/s/ Chad B. Walker

CHAD B. WALKER

Texas Bar No. 24056484

cbwalker@winston.com

MICHAEL J. WOODRUM

Texas Bar No. 24121899

mwoodrum@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 900

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 453-6500 (telephone)

(214) 453-6400 (telecopy)

ANTONY BARONE KOLENC

Florida Bar No. 0181358

tkolenc@avemarialaw.edu

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW

VETERANS AND SERVICEMEMBERS LAW

CLINIC

1025 Commons Circle

Naples, Florida 34119

Tel: (239) 687-5396

JEFFREY C. MATEER

Texas Bar No. 13185320

jmateer@firstliberty.org

DAVID J. HACKER

Texas Bar No. 24103323

dhacker@firstliberty.org

MICHAEL D. BERRY

Texas Bar No. 24085835

mberry@firstliberty.org

DANIELLE A. RUNYAN

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 672
Joint Motion to Stay 6

Texas Bar No. 24134548

drunyan@firstliberty.org

FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE

2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Ste. 1600

Plano, Texas 75075

Tel: (972) 941-4444

Counsel for Plaintiff Jace Yarbrough

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 673
Joint Motion to Stay 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Tuesday, February 20, 2024, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was filed electronically with the court and has been sent to counsel of record 

via the court’s electronic filing system.

/s/ Shmuel Bushwick

SHMUEL BUSHWICK

Trial Attorney

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 674
Joint Motion to Stay 8

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on February 14, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for the Official 

Capacity Defendants were contacted regarding the relief sought in this motion. Counsel for 

Plaintiff and counsel for the Official Capacity Defendants are unopposed to the relief sought in 

this motion, and join in this request. 

/s/Shmuel Bushwick

SHMUEL BUSHWICK

Trial Attorney

Case 4:23-cv-00876-ALM Document 31 Filed 02/20/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 675