klayman v. clinton - defs motion to stay discovery

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 1 of 15

2

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.


3

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).


4

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.


5

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.


6

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

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


7

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


8

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-J-

34TEM, 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).


9

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


10

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.


11

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-


12

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

3 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. 01-1715 (D.D.C.); Barr v. Clinton, No. 02-437 (D.D.C.); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, No. 02-1633 (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.).

4 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.).


13

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) [email protected] Katherine M. Turner (DC Bar #495528) (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] Amy Mason Saharia (DC Bar #981644) (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 and


14

MARCUS NEIMAN & RASHBAUM LLP /s/ Jeffrey E. Marcus Jeffrey E. Marcus Fla. Bar No. 310890 [email protected] 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


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
