Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LARRY KLAYMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON, and THE CLINTON
FOUNDATION a/k/a The William J. Clinton
Foundation a/k/a The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea
Clinton Foundation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 15-cv-80388-DMM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton (the Individual
Defendants) hereby move to stay discovery in this case pending a decision on Defendants
pending motions to dismiss. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, the Federal Rules do not
unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 67879 (2009). The circumstances here exemplify those in
which a complaint should be subjected to judicial scrutiny before permitting a plaintiff to take
discovery. As documented in the Individual Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Prejudgment Attachment of Computer E-mail File Server [Dkt. #24], Plaintiff is a repeated filer
of meritless lawsuits who has been sanctioned multiple times by courts around the country. The
Individual Defendants are the former President and Secretary of State of the United States,
whom Plaintiff has sued before, without success, at least fifteen times. And as the Individual
Defendants and Clinton Foundations pending motions to dismiss demonstrate, this case is no

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 2 of 15

different: here, Plaintiff has simply not alleged a justiciable case or controversy. The Individual
Defendants and the Court should not be put to the burdens of discovery given the likely dismissal
of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Individual Defendants respectfully request
that the Court stay discovery pending a decision on Defendants motions to dismiss and, further,
that it stay discovery pending the resolution of this motion.
BACKGROUND
A.

The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the Individual Defendants and the Clinton Foundation
on March 24, 2015. This Court subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint on
May 29, 2015. See Order [Dkt. #39].1 In his unfiled Amended Complaint, Plaintiff purports to
assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961
1968, as well as a state-law claim for alleged misappropriation of chattel and Bivens claims for
alleged violation of Plaintiffs First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs 313-paragraph Amended Complaint recites a litany of political grievances
dating back to the 1990s. The only injury alleged in the Amended Complaint is Plaintiffs
speculation that Secretary Clintons use of a private e-mail address during her tenure as Secretary
of State resulted in the non-production of e-mails in response to two requests under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. See Am. Compl. [Dkt. #32-1] 12, 33, 281, 307,
310.
As set forth in the Individual Defendants motion to dismiss, the two FOIA requests on
which Plaintiffs claims are premised are the subject of ongoing litigation between Freedom
Watch, Inc. (which filed the requests) and the State Department. Individual Defs. Mot. to
1

This Courts Order instructed Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint by June 2, 2015. He still
has not done so.
2

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 3 of 15

Dismiss the Am. Compl. (Individual Defs. Mot. to Dismiss) [Dkt. #43], at 24. Freedom
Watch brought two FOIA actions against the State Department, among other agencies,
challenging the adequacy of the Departments search for responsive documents. The district
court granted summary judgment to the Department in both cases. See Freedom Watch, Inc. v.
Natl Sec. Agency, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2014) (Freedom Watch I), affd and remanded,
783 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Freedom Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 14-1832(JEB),
--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2015 WL 109837, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2015) (Freedom Watch II).
Freedom Watch appealed both rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
See Case Nos. 14-5174 (appeal of Freedom Watch I) & 15-5048 (appeal of Freedom Watch II).
While the appeal of Freedom Watch I was pending, in December 2014, Secretary Clinton
provided the State Department with a copy of more than 30,000 e-mails from her
@clintonemail.com account. Am. Compl. 60. The D.C. Circuit recently remanded Freedom
Watch I to the district court to oversee the Departments search of Secretary Clintons e-mails for
records responsive to the FOIA request. See Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Natl Sec. Agency, 783 F.3d
1340 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The appeal of Freedom Watch II is still pending in the D.C. Circuit. In
that case, the Department has pledged to make Secretary Clintons e-mails available to the public
and review the e-mails to determine if any are responsive to Freedom Watchs FOIA request.
Mot., Case No. 15-5048, at 34 (D.C. Cir. May 22, 2015). The Department began releasing
Secretary Clintons e-mails to the public on May 22, 2015, and it has been ordered to continue
releasing e-mails on a set production schedule. See Notice, Dkt. #13, Leopold v. U.S. Dept of
State, No. 15-cv-00123-RC (D.D.C. May 26, 2015); Order, Dkt. #17, Leopold v. U.S. Dept of
State, No. 15-cv-00123-RC (D.D.C. May 27, 2015).

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 4 of 15

B.

Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Attachment of Computer File Server

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion in this case seeking expedited production of
the e-mail server associated with Secretary Clintons @clintonemail.com account used during
her tenure as Secretary of State, as well as entry into the Individual Defendants private residence
to image such server [Dkt. ##8, 9]. Plaintiff also sought, in the alternative, prejudgment
attachment of the server and/or a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff filed the motion mere
hours after an individual purporting to be a staff attorney working for Freedom Watch e-mailed
the underlying discovery requests to counsel for the Individual Defendants.
The Individual Defendants opposed Plaintiffs motion on April 27, 2015. See Individual
Defs. Oppn to Pl.s Mot. for Prejudgment Attachment (Oppn to Mot. for Prejudgment
Attachment) [Dkt. #24]. In their Opposition, the Individual Defendants first argued that
Plaintiff was not entitled to the extraordinary relief he requested, both for procedural reasons and
on the merits. Id. at 513. On the merits, the Individual Defendants noted in particular that
[c]ourts in the Eleventh Circuit routinely reject attempts by plaintiffs to circumvent . . . ordinary
discovery procedure by requesting production of a defendants entire computer server and/or
entry into premises to inspect computers. Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, In re Ford Motor Co., 345
F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003)).
The Individual Defendants further argued that Plaintiffs motion should be denied for the
additional reason that discovery should be stayed pending the Courts decision on Defendants
motions to dismiss. Id. at 1317. Noting that some district courts require a showing of good
cause to stay discovery, the Individual Defendants argued that [t]he circumstances of this case
easily satisfy any good cause requirement because (a) Plaintiffs claims lack merit and (b)
Plaintiff has a history of pursuing meritless claims and engaging in sanctionable litigation
conduct. Id. at 14.
4

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 5 of 15

After requesting, in three separate motions, a total of eighteen additional days to file a
reply in support of his expedited motion [Dkt. ##28, 30, 34], Plaintiff filed his reply brief on
May 27, 2015 [Dkt. #36].
C.

Defendants Motions To Dismiss

On June 5, 2015, the Individual Defendants and the Clinton Foundation filed motions to
dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [Dkt. ##43, 44]. Each joined and incorporated by
reference the others motion in relevant part.
In the motions to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged a justiciable
case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as Plaintiffs speculative belief
that he is being deprived of documents responsive to FOIA does not constitute a concrete or
particularized injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Clinton Foundations Mot. to
Dismiss Pl.s Am. Compl. (Foundation Mot. to Dismiss) [Dkt. #44] at 7 (quotation marks
omitted). Moreover, Plaintiffs speculative injury is not redressable in this lawsuit because any
remedy for Plaintiffs alleged FOIA injuries lies with the State Department, in the two actions
proceeding in the District of Columbia. Id. at 11.
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint further fails to state a claim. In particular, the Amended
Complaint is defective because:

Plaintiff has not alleged viable RICO claims because (1) he has not alleged injury to
his business or property proximately caused by a predicate act of racketeering, (2) he
has not alleged any predicate acts of racketeering, and (3) he has not identified an
enterprise. Individual Defs. Mot. to Dismiss 817.

Plaintiffs Bivens claims fail because (1) he does not have a First or Fifth Amendment
right to government records and (2) the comprehensive nature of FOIA precludes an
implied Bivens remedy. Id. at 1719.

Plaintiffs state-law claim for misappropriation of chattel property is equally

meritless because Plaintiff cannot establish an ownership interest in Secretary
Clintons e-mails. Id. at 1920.
5

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 6 of 15

This Court granted Plaintiff a fourteen-day extension of time for responding to the
motions to dismiss. See Endorsed Order [Dkt. #48]. Plaintiffs opposition is currently due to be
filed today, July 2, 2015. On July 1, Plaintiff requested Defendants consent to an additional
five-day extension, which Defendants provided. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1)(A),
Defendants reply briefs will be due ten days following the filing of Plaintiffs Opposition.
Assuming Plaintiff files and the Court grants the request for the five-day extension and Plaintiff
does not receive any additional extensions of time, the motions to dismiss will be fully briefed
and ripe for decision in mid-July.
D.

The Scheduling Conference and Plaintiffs Request for Production of

Documents

On June 22, 2015, Magistrate Judge Brannon issued an order setting an expedited
scheduling conference for June 30, 2015. [Dkt. #49]. The order dispensed with the requirement
to submit a Local Rule 16.1(b) conference report. During the scheduling conference on June 30,
Judge Brannon set a close-of-discovery date of September 28, 2015 and said that the parties were
free to begin discovery.2 The Individual Defendants informed Judge Brannon of Defendants
position, already set forth in the Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Attachment of
Computer Email File Server [Dkt. #24], that there should be no discovery until the Court rules on
the pending motions to dismiss. Judge Brannon stated that such motion had not been referred to
him for decision, and he therefore did not address the issue.
Several hours after the scheduling conference, an individual purporting to act on behalf of
Mr. Klaymanwho has brought his suit as a pro se Plaintiffsent to counsel for Defendants an

On July 2, Judge Brannon issued a Scheduling Order confirming this date [Dkt. #53].
6

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 7 of 15

e-mail attaching requests for the production of documents. The requests seek the following two
categories of documents and things:
1. [P]rivate email servers and any documents and things that refer or relate to
[Secretary Clintons] role as Secretary of State in granting waivers for persons,
business entities, countries or other interests concerning the sanctions imposed on the
Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States, United Nations and other nations and
interests.
2. [P]rivate email servers and any documents and things that refer or relate to the
release of the classified information regarding the cyberattack on Iranian nuclear
facilities using the Stuxnet computer virus and Israeli or American war plans to
preemptively strike Iranian nuclear facilities.
These requests purport to require a response within thirty days.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff should not be permitted to impose the burden of discovery on the Individual
Defendants and this Court, given the fundamental defects in his Amended Complaint and his
extensive history of pursuing flawed litigation. Plaintiffs newest discovery requests confirm
that this lawsuit is an improper attempt to end-run the FOIA process. This Court should not
countenance such gamesmanship by permitting Plaintiff to take discovery while this Court
considers Defendants motions to dismiss Plaintiffs meritless Amended Complaint.
I.

DISCOVERY MAY BE STAYED UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE.

The Eleventh Circuit has counseled the district courts that [f]acial challenges to the legal

sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for
relief, should . . . be resolved before discovery begins. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp, 123
F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (footnote omitted). Because such motions present purely
legal question[s], neither the parties nor the court have any need for discovery before the court
rules on the motion. Id. As the Court observed, discovery imposes costs and burdens on both
the litigant from whom discovery is requested and the judicial system itself, and those
7

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 8 of 15

unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided by dismiss[ing] a
nonmeritorious claim before discovery has begun. Id. at 136768. The Eleventh Circuit has
repeatedly reaffirmed this guidance. See, e.g., Carter v. DeKalb Cnty., 521 F. Appx 725, 728
(11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Redford v. Gwinnett Cnty. Judicial Circuit, 350 F. Appx 341, 346
(11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002). The
Supreme Court, too, has endorsed this approach. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 67879 (stating that the
Federal Rules do not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions).
Thus, district courts in this Circuit frequently stay discovery pending resolution of
motions to dismiss. See, e.g., Moore v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-298-J34TEM, 2009 WL 4899400, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2009); Staup v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., No.
08-60359-CIV, 2008 WL 1771818, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2008); McCabe v. Foley, 233
F.R.D. 683, 687 (M.D. Fla. 2006); Carcamo v. Miami-Dade Cnty., No. 03-20870-CIV, 2003 WL
24336368, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2003). In this regard, some district courts have required the
party seeking a stay to show good cause and reasonableness, which are examined by
balanc[ing] the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion
will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery. McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685
(quotation marks omitted). This balancing test typically involves taking a preliminary peek at
the merits of a dispositive motion to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case
dispositive. Id. (quotation marks omitted). Another relevant factor in the analysis is a partys
litigation history. Moore, 2009 WL 4899400, at *2 (noting that the plaintiff was a prolific
litigator whose previous cases in that court had not survived the motion-to-dismiss stage).

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 9 of 15

II.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO STAY DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE.

The circumstances of this case easily satisfy any good cause requirement.
A.

Plaintiffs Claims Lack Merit.

A preliminary peek at the merits of Defendants motions to dismiss demonstrates that

each motion is case dispositive. McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685 (quotation marks omitted). For
the reasons set forth in the Clinton Foundations motion to dismiss (which the Individual
Defendants incorporated by reference), Plaintiffs speculation that Secretary Clinton possesses
documents responsive to Freedom Watchs FOIA requests does not constitute a concrete or
particularized injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Foundation Mot. to Dismiss at 7
(quotation marks omitted). For this and other reasons, he has not alleged a justiciable case or
controversy under Article III.
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint also fails on the merits. The Individual Defendants will
not repeat each of their arguments here, and they respectfully refer the Court to their motion to
dismiss. Notably, each of Plaintiffs claims necessarily rests on the proposition that Plaintiff has
a property or constitutional right in government records. As described in the Individual
Defendants motion to dismiss (which the Clinton Foundation incorporated by reference), the
cases uniformly reject that proposition. See Individual Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 11, 1819. The
claims also should be dismissed for each of the other reasons set forth in the Defendants
motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs most recent discovery requests reinforce the meritless nature of his Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs document requests call for production of the very same documents that
Freedom Watch requested in its FOIA requests. See supra p.7; Freedom Watch I, 49 F. Supp. 3d
at 3; Freedom Watch II, 2015 WL 109837, at *1. The requests confirm that Plaintiff is
improperly using this lawsuit to circumvent the FOIA process. FOIA actions cannot be brought
9

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 10 of 15

against individual employees (or former employees) of the federal government, or against other
private individuals or entities. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); Petrus v. Brown, 833 F.2d 581, 582
(5th Cir. 1987) (FOIA does not create[] a cause of action for a suit against an individual
employee of a federal agency); see also Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attys, 310 F.3d 771,
777 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (the comprehensive nature of FOIA precludes courts from implying private
rights of action against individuals under Bivens). Plaintiffs remedy for nonproduction of
documents in response to a FOIA request is litigation against the agencywhich Freedom
Watch is currently pursuing. To permit Plaintiff to obtain documents responsive to FOIA
requests (to the extent any even exist) through civil discovery in a meritless lawsuit against the
former Secretary of State would set a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse.
As outlined above, the motions to dismiss should be fully briefed by mid-July. Until the
Courts decision on those motions, the Court should stay discovery to protect Defendants from
the burden of responding to discovery in a lawsuit that will ultimately be dismissed.
B.

Plaintiffs Litigation History Further Justifies a Stay of Discovery.

Plaintiffs litigation history also counsels strongly against permitting discovery before
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint has been tested under the federal pleadings standards. See
Moore, 2009 WL 4899400, at *2. Like the plaintiff in Moore, Plaintiff is a prolific litigator,
id., who habitually brings lawsuits (as either a party or an attorney) so lacking in merit that
courts have disposed of them at the motion-to-dismiss stage. See, e.g., Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F.
Supp. 3d 185, 192 (D.D.C. 2014) (dismissal of suit against President Obama for failure to allege
justiciable case or controversy); Klayman v. Kollar-Kotelly, 892 F. Supp. 2d 261, 264 (D.D.C.
2012) (dismissal of case against federal judges for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction), affd, No.
12-5340, 2013 WL 2395909 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2013) (per curiam); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.

10

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 11 of 15

Senate, 340 F. Supp. 2d 26, 3031 (D.D.C. 2004) (dismissal for failure to allege justiciable case
or controversy), affd, 432 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Moreover, federal courts have repeatedly reprimanded and sanctioned Plaintiff for this
litigation conduct. See, e.g., MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 138 F.3d 33, 3739
(2d Cir. 1998) (affirming order barring Plaintiff from further pro hac vice practice before a
district judge where Plaintiff sent the judge an insulting letter strongly implying that he was
not impartial based solely on his appointment by the Clinton Administration and on his being
Asian-American); Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 562 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (affirming order barring Plaintiff from further pro hac vice practice before a district
judge where the judge considered Mr. Klayman to have acted in bad faith, in particular by
making certain misrepresentations to the court); Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp.
2d 137, 139, 150 (D.D.C. 2011) (imposing sanctions in light of Plaintiffs pattern of
intransigence and disrespect for the Courts authority); Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 188, 190
(D.D.C. 1999) (stating that [t]he court has grown weary of plaintiffs counsels useand
abuseof the discovery process). Just a few months ago, a district judge in the Middle District
of Florida admonished Plaintiff for his habit of plung[ing] into a tirade against whomever he
feels has wronged him and warned him to keep in mind his obligations under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11. Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL, 2015 WL 1546173, at
*17 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2015).
The Individual Defendants have borne the burden of defending against Mr. Klaymans
meritless complaints time and again: Plaintiff has sued former Secretary Clinton or President
Clinton at least fifteen times. Almost all of those lawsuits have failed before or at the motion-to-

11

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 12 of 15

dismiss stage,3 and Mr. Klayman has not prevailed on the merits on a single claim over his
decades-long history of suing the Individual Defendants.4 Indeed, in one New York state case
brought by Plaintiff against the Individual Defendants, the court observed that Plaintiff had
proceeded with a total disregard for the judicial process, and denied him pro hac vice
admission on that basis. See Ex. B to Oppn to Mot. for Prejudgment Attachment [Dkt. #24-2].
In view of this litigation historyboth Plaintiffs general record of bringing lawsuits that
have met with swift dismissal and his specific record of bringing meritless suits against the
Individual Defendantsthere should be no discovery permitted in this action unless Plaintiff can
demonstrate that his claims meet federal pleadings requirements. As Defendants motions to
dismiss demonstrate, he cannot.
C.

Plaintiff Will Not Be Prejudiced by a Stay of Discovery.

Finally, there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff if discovery is stayed in this case. The only
injury alleged by Plaintiff is his speculation that Freedom Watch has not yet received all
documents responsive to its FOIA requests because of Secretary Clintons use of a private e-mail
address. Individual Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 1011. But, as Plaintiff acknowledges, Secretary
Clinton provided a copy of more than 30,000 e-mails to the State Department, and the
Department has pledged to review those e-mails to identify responsive documents, if any. The

See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, No. 94-1688 (D.D.C.); Meng v. Schwartz, No. 98-2859
(D.D.C.); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., No. 99-2566 (D.D.C.); Hall v. Clinton,
No. 99-3281 (D.D.C.); Schwicker v. Clinton, No. 00-2252 (D.D.C.); Meng v. Schwartz, No. 011715 (D.D.C.); Barr v. Clinton, No. 02-437 (D.D.C.); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, No. 021633 (D.D.C.); Rodearmel v. Clinton, No. 09-171 (D.D.C.); Paul v. Clinton, No. BC304174
(Cal. Super. Ct.); Stern v. Buckle, No. 103916/07 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

See supra n.3; see also Alexander v. FBI, No. 96-2123 (D.D.C.); Grimley v. FBI, No. 97-1288
(D.D.C.); Browning v. Clinton, No. 98-1991 (D.D.C.); Flowers v. Carville, No. 99-1629 (D.
Nev.).
12

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 13 of 15

injury that Plaintiff seeks to remedy thus has not even occurred, and in any event the discovery
he seeks here is duplicative of any relief Freedom Watch will receive in its FOIA cases.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Individual Defendants respectfully request that this Court
stay all discovery pending a decision on Defendants motions to dismiss. In addition, given the
possibility that the Individual Defendants will have to respond to Plaintiffs requests before this
motion is decided, the Individual Defendants request a stay of discovery pending resolution of
this motion.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)

On July 1, 2015, counsel for the Individual Defendants and the Clinton Foundation conferred
by telephone with Plaintiff in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this Motion but were
unable to do so. Plaintiff informed counsel for Defendants that he opposes a stay of discovery.

Date: July 2, 2015

By /s/ David E. Kendall

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
David E. Kendall (DC Bar # 252890)
(admitted pro hac vice)
dkendall@wc.com
Katherine M. Turner (DC Bar #495528)
(admitted pro hac vice)
kturner@wc.com
Amy Mason Saharia (DC Bar #981644)
(admitted pro hac vice)
asaharia@wc.com
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
and
13

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 14 of 15

MARCUS NEIMAN & RASHBAUM LLP

/s/ Jeffrey E. Marcus
Jeffrey E. Marcus
Fla. Bar No. 310890
jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com
2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1750
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 400-4268
Facsimile: (866) 780-8355
Counsel for Defendants Hillary Rodham
Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton

14

Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2015 Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to
Stay Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law was served via CM/ECF on all counsel
or parties of record.
By: /s/ Jeffrey E. Marcus
JEFFREY E. MARCUS

15