Gona v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEEPIKNA GONA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-3680-RCL
UNITED ST A TES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court are defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services'
(USCIS) motion [15] to stay proceedings or to extend the LCvR 7(n)(l) deadline and the parties'
Rule 16(b) report [ 17]. The Court addresses these items in turn.
I. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
The agency asks the Court to stay proceedings for sixty days to allow it time to complete
adjudication of plaintiff Deepikna Gona's applications.
The Court has "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). In exercising that discretion,
the Court must "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance between the court's
interests in judicial economy and any possible hardship to the parties." Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.
Gov 't of Belize, w, 733 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting Landis
v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). The movant bears the burden of establishing its
need for a stay. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. If a stay may harm another party, the movant "must
make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward." Landis v. N Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).
The Court has no doubt that Ms. Gona suffers harm each day she waits-without the ability
to work-for the agency to process her applications. Accordingly, the agency must demonstrate
clearly that it would suffer hardship or inequity absent a stay. This it cannot do. The agency's
case for a stay is rooted entirely in efficiency concerns; however, engaging in potentially
unnecessary litigation for a few weeks does not pose nearly the same hardship as an inability to
lawfully work for the same per.iod of time. Thus, the agency is not entitled to a stay.
II. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES
In the alternative, the agency seeks a three-week extension of its deadline to file an index
of the administrative record, as required by LCvR 7(n)( 1).
As the agency sought the extension before the deadline lapsed, it must demonstrate good
cause to be accorded additional time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(l)(A). The agency says it "will need
additional time to produce a certified list of the administrative record documents pertaining to the
agency actions and inactions that are raised in the Complaint," Def. 's Mem. 4, ECF No. 15-1, but
does not explain why it needs ~dditional time. A conclusory statement of unavoidable delay does
not constitute good cause to extend a deadline. The agency also says that "because Plaintiff's
counsel has filed cases raising essentially identical claims in other judicial districts, the contents
of the administrative records must be coordinated among attorneys and agency officials
responsible for handling the other cases, as well." Id. The Court struggles to see why parallel
suits should slow the process of producing the administrative record. The record supporting an
agency regulation is static. Indeed, if anything, the existence of parallel litigation in a more
advanced posture should lessen the work the agency must complete in this case. Nevertheless,
because Ms. Gona has not expressly opposed this extension and because an extension is unlikely
to prejudice Ms. Gona or hinder the fair administration of justice, the Court will allow the agency
2
the extension it seeks. See Day v. D.C. Dep't of Consumer & Regul. Ajfs., 191 F. Supp. 2d 154,
160 (D.D.C. 2002).
III. DISCOVERY
Jn their Rule 16(b) report, the parties disagree about whether discovery is appropriate in
this case. The Court need not parse all of their arguments because the resolution of this dispute is
quite simple.
Ms. Gona is entitled to conduct discovery on her unreasonable delay claim because resolving
that claim requires careful analysis of her specific factual circumstances. See Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Indeed, the
Court cannot decide this claim based solely on the administrative record because agency inaction
generally does not produce a record at all. See Nat 'l L. Ctr. on Homelessness & Poverty v. Dep 't
of Veterans Affs., 842 F. Supp. 2d 127, 130 (D.D.C. 2012); see ·also, e.g., Mot. for Relief from
LCvR 7(n) at 2, Addala v. Cuccinelli, No. 20-cv-2460-RCL, ECF No. 8 (acknowledging that
USCIS does not have administrative record prior to visa adjudication). More importantly, an
isolated administrative record would not allow the Court to determine whether the agency adheres
to a rule ofreason in adjudicatiµg visa applications. Discovery is necessary to resolve Ms. Gona's
inaction claim.
Ms. Gona is not entitled to conduct discovery, as it appears both parties agree, to support
her APA challenge to the agency regulation. In a challenge to final agency action, judicial review
is ordinarily limited to the administrative record in existence at the time of the agency's decision.
Aguayo v. Harvey, 476 F.3d 971,976 (D.C.Cir.2007) (citing Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
470 U.S. 729, 743(1985)).
3
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion is GRANTED IN PART insofar as it seeks an
extension of the LCvR 7(n)(l) deadline and DENIED IN PART insofar as it seeks a stay of
proceedings. The agency's deadline to produce an index of the administrative record is extended,
nunc pro tune, to April 5, 2021.
Additionally, the parties shall adhere to the following deadlines:
• Discovery deadtine May 10, 2021
• Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment due May 17, 2021
• Defendant's combined cross-motion for summary judgment/ May 31, 2021
opposition due
• Plaintiffs combined response/reply due June 7, 2021
• Defendant's reply due June 14, 2021
• Joint appendix of administrative record due June 28, 2021
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: - - -- I
'-I I I '1,,(
- -- - Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge
4