It’s September 8. The hearing in California District Court is over. Here are the results (thanks to Politijab.com):
- The issue of service. Seven months after filing the lawsuit, the defendants have been served with the complaint.
- Recusal of the Magistrate. Orly had demanded that the magistrate assigned recuse himself for not allowing her filing on technical grounds of an alleged Kenyan birth certificate (not to be confused with a different alleged Kenyan birth certificate that she filed later). Motion denied.
- Reinstatement of plaintiffs. Drake and Robinson have been reinstated as plaintiffs, but represented by lawyer Gary Kreep instead of Orly Taitz. Taitz and Kreep told the judge that they couldn’t work together; the judge told them they must.
- Dismissal. Hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss October 5, 2009.
In what seems a reference to Orly’s totally irregular expectation that she should present surprise witnesses at this procedural hearing this morning and litany of prior failure to follow rules and procedure, the judge in his scheduling order said:
In order “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all counsel shall familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California.1 All civil actions or proceedings will be pre-tried according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and applicable Local Rules.
In language that I am sure will be all over the Internet by tomorrow morning, the Judge also said:
Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery. [Emphasis added.]
However, the judge is quoted in Court as saying: “No discovery can go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.” The full Scheduling Order is here. Notes taken at the hearing are here [thanks to richCares for the link].
If this ever goes to trial, a tentative date of January 26, 2010 is set.
Expect this to be spun to the sky, but the above is all that happened.