State of Washington v. Trump., 2:17-cv-00141

Background

Plaintiffs challenged President Trump’s immigration Executive Orders (EO1 and EO2); EO2 revoked EO1 and this suit was amended to challenge EO2.
The district court previously entered a TRO against parts of EO1; Defendants withdrew that appeal after EO2 issued.
The District of Hawaii entered a nationwide TRO enjoining sections 2 and 6 of EO2 and the Ninth Circuit is hearing an expedited appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.
Defendants moved to stay this entire Washington action pending resolution of the Hawaii appeal; Plaintiffs opposed the stay.
The court weighed judicial economy, potential prejudice, and hardship, and concluded the Hawaii appeal likely will resolve or clarify many overlapping legal issues relevant here.
The court granted the stay, imposed preservation obligations on parties, allowed limited procedures for third‑party subpoenas (with production stayed), and ordered a joint status report within ten days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay this case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii v. Trump	Stay would prejudice Plaintiffs and risk loss of evidence; issues here are not identical to Hawaii	Hawaii appeal will likely resolve many overlapping legal issues and guide discovery and dismissal motions; judicial economy favors a stay	Court granted stay pending Hawaii appeal to promote orderly course of justice and conserve resources
Scope of discovery and relevance of pre‑inauguration materials	Plaintiffs claim pre‑inauguration materials are relevant and necessary; discovery should proceed	Defendants contend Mandel standard limits inquiry to facially legitimate reasons and many internal records are irrelevant; Hawaii appeal may resolve scope	Court required parties to preserve potentially relevant materials (including pre‑Jan 20) and stayed discovery pending guidance from Ninth Circuit; allowed preservation letters and limited third‑party subpoenas (with production stayed)
Whether discovery burden on executive branch warrants a stay	Plaintiffs argue general burden of defense is insufficient to justify stay	Defendants emphasize extraordinary burden from wide‑ranging discovery aimed at high‑level officials; executive‑branch deference counsels restraint	Court found hardship to Defendants from intensive discovery (and respect for executive office) weighty; favors stay
Procedures to mitigate prejudice during stay (evidence preservation, third‑party subpoenas)	Plaintiffs fear evidence loss and third‑party destruction during stay	Defendants suggested preservation letters; opposed immediate expansive discovery	Court ordered parties to preserve relevant evidence, permitted preservation letters, allowed limited third‑party subpoenas (production stayed), and required joint status report after Ninth Circuit ruling

Key Cases Cited

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (judicial authority to manage docket and stay proceedings) (1997) (stay power and docket control)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay pending resolution of related proceedings; issues need only be substantially similar) (1936)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (factors to weigh in stay analysis) (9th Cir. 2005)
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (stay factors and balancing interests) (9th Cir. 1962)
Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (special deference and restraint in litigation involving the Executive) (2004)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (standard for judicial review of executive exclusion of aliens) (1972)
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 593 F.2d 857 (authority to stay proceedings pending resolution of related actions) (9th Cir. 1979)