McAleenan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 AL OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ v.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary AND DECISION ON THE

MOTION TO STAY

of Homeland Security, et al., 13 (ECF No. 638) Defendants. 14 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for an order shortening the time for Plaintiffs to respond to, and for the Court to issue a decision on, Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification of the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (“Stay Motion”). (Stay Mot., ECF No. 637; Ex Parte App., ECF No. 638.) Defendants claim that this ex parte relief is necessary because of the “substantial burdens” involved in their compliance with this Court’s October 30, 2020 Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification of the Preliminary Injunction (“Order”). (ECF No. 605.) Plaintiffs take no position regarding the application. (Ex Parte App. at 1.) Ex parte…