Source: https://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/us-v-california-sanctuary-lawsuit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:52:04+00:00

Document:
Per reporter Jazmine Ulloa, the Department of Justice yesterday filed a notice of appeal from Judge Mendez's orders largely denying the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction and mostly granting California's motion to dismiss the lawsuit challenging California's so-called "Sanctuary State" law.
Judge Mendez denied defendants' motion to transfer United States v. California to the Northern District of California in this order.
The Court also ordered that defendants' opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction is due May 4, any Amici Briefs in support are due May 18, and plaintiff's reply is due June 8. A hearing on the motion is set on June 20, 2018, at 10 a.m.
Judge Mendez granted an extension until April 6 for the filing of any Amici Briefs in support of the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction in U.S. v. California, et. al. Here is the proposed Amici Brief of Texas and some other "red" states. See today's LA Times story.
P.S. I find it interesting that only the governors of Mississippi and Maine joined (Phil Bryant and Paul R. LePage, respectively) rather than those states themselves.
In United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-JAN, the EDCA court website has links to the US Opposition to the Motion to Transfer Venue to the NDCA and Judge Newman's final discovery order, which grants California's request to take up to 4-hour depositions of the ICE and US Customs & Border Patrol directors by April 13, 2018.
United States v. California Discovery Hearing Set For March 21, 3 P.M.
After the parties filed this joint letter brief, Magistrate Judge Newman set a hearing on March 21, 3 p.m., in his 8th floor courtroom, to discuss California's request for expedited discovery to respond to the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin three California "sanctuary" laws.
The EDCA's website has conveniently listed United States v. California, et. al., No. 2:18-CV-0490-JAM-KJN as a "case of interest," with links to some of the more significant case filings (available here).
On March 12, Judge Mendez issued a minute order setting a schedule on California's motion to transfer, referring discovery issues to the magistrate judge, and holding off setting a schedule on the motion for a preliminary injunction until the Court rules on the motion to transfer and/or motion for expedited discovery. California's motion to transfer is here. The United States' response and California's Reply are due March 20 and March 23, respectively. The Court stated it would then decide the motion on the papers without oral argument.
Magistrate Judge Newman has also ordered the parties to submitted a joint letter brief setting forth the parties respective positions regarding expedited discovery and associated scheduling issues by March 19.
On Thursday, the United States filed a "notice concerning possibly related case" informing the Court that its current suit (2:18-cv-0490-JAM-KJN) may be deemed related under local rule 123 to Brosnan v. Becerra, et. al., No. 2:18-CV-00322-MCE-AC. Docket 9. The notice of related cases rule generally asks the parties to notify the court when a "related" case has been filed in our district. If the Court deems the cases related, they are both heard by the judge that was assigned the earlier action for efficiency purposes. In this case, that would have meant the feds' current suit against California's so-called sanctuary laws would have been transferred from Judge Mendez to Judge England. But Chief Judge O'Neill ruled yesterday that it would be "inappropriate" to relate or reassign the cases. Docket 12. So the current fed lawsuit will remain with Judge Mendez, at least for the near future.
Judge Mendez had asked the parties to try to reach agreement on a briefing schedule on the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction and, if they couldn't agree, to submit their proposed briefing schedules by March 9. Not surprisingly, no agreement was reached. The United States proposed this schedule: any amicus filings in support of the US's preliminary injunction request to be filed by March 23; CA's opposition filed by March 30; any amicus filings in support of CA filed by April 9; the US reply brief filed by April 16, and oral argument on April 24, May 1, or other date convenient to the court. Docket 10.
California, on the hand, wants time to litigate a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and to conduct some limited discovery before responding to the motion for preliminary injunction. Docket 14; see Politico's take. California notes that one day before the United States filed its lawsuit, NDCA Judge William H. Orrick denied California's motion for preliminary injunction in a related case, California v. Sessions, NDCA No. 17-CV-4701. California proposes the following schedule on the motion to transfer: motion to transfer filed by March 13; US response filed by March 20; CA's reply filed by March 27, and a hearing on the motion on April 5.
California also notes that it anticipates moving for "targeted, expedited discovery" concerning allegations in the declarations in support of the United States' motion for preliminary injunction. While it believes the Court should rule on its motion to transfer before considering the preliminary injunction, it proposes the following schedule if the Court is inclined to set a schedule for the preliminary injunction motion at this time (subject to change in the event of discovery disputes): any amicus filings in support of the US filed by April 30; CA's opposition filed by May 7; amicus filings in support of CA filed by May 30; US reply filed by June 6; and a hearing on the motion on June 20, June 27, or other convenient date.
Judge Mendez is likely to issue a scheduling order soon.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1404
 v.