Case: Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge

4:19-cv-00449 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Filed Date: June 26, 2019

Closed Date: Sept. 19, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Consolidated federal lawsuits were prompted by Arkansas state laws that limited the circumstances under which a woman could seek an abortion. The plaintiffs in both cases, abortion-providing facilities in Arkansas and the doctors that worked at them, claimed that Arkansas already regulated abortions to make it safe and that these laws unnecessarily restricted access. Specifically, they alleged that the 18-week ban prevented abortions before viability, the Reason Ban was unconstitutionally vague…

Case Number: 4:15-cv-00784
The first case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on December 28, 2015 by Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma (“PPAEO”) and Little Rock Family Planning Services (“LRFPS”), two abortion-providing facilities. This suit contested Arkansas Act 577, which was enacted in 2015 and required abortion providers to have a signed contract with a physician who agreed to handle complications and emergencies and who had admitting privileges at a hospital as well as required abortion providers to comply with the requirements listed on the final printed label of an abortion drug. To read more about what happened in this case before it was consolidated with the case below click here.

Case Number: 4:19-cv-00449
On June 26, 2019, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma (“PPAEO”) and Little Rock Family Planning Services (“LRFPS”), two abortion-providing facilities, and two doctors that worked at the clinics filed an additional suit contesting Arkansas’ new laws (Act 493 of 2019, Act 619 of 2019, and Act 700 of 2019). These laws, enacted on April 24, 2019, restricted circumstances under which a woman could request an abortion after 18 weeks gestation, prevented doctors from aborting a fetus if the doctor “has knowledge” that the woman was seeking an abortion solely because the fetus had Down Syndrome (the “Reason Ban”), and barred anyone other than a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist (“OBGYN”) from performing an abortion. The plaintiffs sued the state of Arkansas, the Arkansas State Medical Board, the Arkansas Department of Health, and two county prosecutors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the new Arkansas laws.

Along with the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, arguing that the new Arkansas laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs claimed that the new laws in Arkansas unconstitutionally limited access to abortions in that state. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited consolidation with the case Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley, No. 4:15-cv-00784-KGB (E.D. Ark.) on June 26, 2019. The next day, on June 27, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the cases, and the case transferred to Judge Kristine G. Baker. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the reassignment of the case to Judge Baker on July 1, 2019. On July 5, 2019, the district court denied the defendants motion for reconsideration, and Judge Baker remained presiding over the consolidated matter. 2019 WL 2913505.

On July 18, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. A few days later, on July 23, 2019, Judge Baker issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the plaintiffs. 398 F.Supp.3d 330. The temporary restraining order enjoined the defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, including their employees, agents, and successors in office, from enforcing Arkansas new laws. The temporary restraining order expired on August 6, 2019. The court kept under advisement the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. On August 6, 2019, Judge Baker granted preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs, enjoining the defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, including their employees, agents, and successors in office, from enforcing Arkansas new laws. 397 F. Supp. 3d 1213. The preliminary injunction was to remain in effect until further ordered by the court. The defendants appealed the court’s decision that same day.

On April 3, 2020, the Arkansas Department of Health (“ADH”) issued the ADH Directive, which required that all non-medically necessary surgeries be postponed subject to certain enumerated exceptions. The next day, Arkansas’s then Governor Asa Hutchinson signed an executive order on April 4, 2020, which banned all elective abortions during the COVID-19 crisis, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to include the new ban on April 13, 2020. Along with the motion to amend the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and/or a motion to dismiss to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the COVID-19 Abortion Ban. On April 14, 2020, Judge Baker issued a temporary restraining enjoining the defendant and all those acting in concert with them, including their employees, agents, and successors in office, from enforcing the COVID-19 Abortion Ban for the two weeks between April 14, 2020 and April 28, 2020. 2020 WL 1862830. The court kept under advisement the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint.

On April 15, 2020, the defendants sought appellate review of the district court’s COVID-19 Abortion Ban decision, asking the Eighth Circuit to block the temporary restraining order and halt subsequent emergency relief. The appeals panel of Judges James Loken, Bobby Shepherd, and Ralph Erickson agreed to that request on April 22, 2020, holding that abortions were elective, non-necessary medical procedures that should be halted in a time of medical crisis when personal protective equipment is scarce. 956 F.3d 1018. The Eighth Circuit determined that because the April 3, 2020 ADH Directive was issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, even if it was “an outright ban on all pre-viability surgical abortions, it [was] not subject to constitutional challenge unless it ‘[had] no real or substantial relation to’ the public health crisis, or ‘[was], beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of’ a woman’s right to elective abortion.” In response to the Eighth Circuit’s decision, Judge Baker vacated on April 22, 2020 the portion of the temporary restraining order issued on April 14, 2020, enjoining the defendant from “enforcing the Challenged Provisions against any providers of surgical abortions in Arkansas to bar all surgical abortions, ‘except where immediately necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.’”

That same day, on April 22, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking another ex parte temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the COVID-19 Abortion Ban against patients who would be beyond the legal limit for abortion care when the state of emergency is set to expire in Arkansas. However, on April 27, 2020, the ADH issued a revised directive that permitted elective surgeries under certain conditions. This directive didn’t single out abortion providers or surgical abortions, so it was less restrictive than the April 3, 2020 ADH Directive.

On April 28, 2020, the district court construed a portion of the status report as a request to stay briefing on the motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.

On May 1, 2020, the plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and/or a motion for preliminary injunction. The same day, on May 1, 2020, the court struck the plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and all other filings related to the supplemental complaint. The court instructed that the supplemental complaint and the related motions for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief should be filed as a separate action in light of the Eighth Circuit’s decision to deny enjoining the enforcement of the April 3, 2020 ADH Directive. The plaintiffs’ pleadings related to the supplemental complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief were randomly assigned a new docket number (4:20-cv-00470), and the case was assigned to Judge Brian Stacy Miller.

On January 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, including their employees, agents, and successors in office, from enforcing Act 493 of 2019, Act 619 of 2019, and Act 700 of 2019. 984 F.3d 682. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit enjoined the defendants from failing to notify immediately all state officials responsible for enforcing the requirements of Act 493 of 2019, Act 619 of 2019, and Act 700 of 2019, about the existence and requirements of the preliminary injunction. The Eighth Circuit held that the preliminary injunction would remain in effect until further ordered by the Eighth Circuit. On April 9, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. On June 30, 2022, the petition for writ of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Circuit’s judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2002). 142 S. Ct. 2894.

On July 15, 2022, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the case in the district court. On August 1, 2022, the Eighth Circuit vacated its judgment from January 5, 2021 and reopened the case. On September 15, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report requesting that the district court dismiss the case without prejudice in accordance with the plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. On September 19, 2022, the district court dismissed the case. This case is closed.

Case Number: 4:20-cv-00470
On May 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. Along with the supplemental complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to substitute the proposed supplemental complaint. On May 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief.

On May 7, 2020, Judge Miller granted the plaintiffs’ motion to substitute the proposed supplemental complaint but denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. 458 F. Supp. 3d 1065. Based on the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, Judge Miller found that the April 27, 2020 ADH Directive was much less burdensome for both abortion providers and patients than the April 3, 2020 ADH Directive because it permitted elective surgeries as long as certain precautions were taken, whereas the April 3, 2020 ADH Directive prohibited them altogether. Thus, the plaintiffs could not show the likelihood of the temporary restraining order’s success on the merits.

On May 15, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal on May 26, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissed the case without prejudice. This case is now closed.

	Document
4:19-cv-00449	Docket [PACER]	June 8, 2020	June 8, 2020 Docket
1 4:19-cv-00449	Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 Complaint
83 4:19-cv-00449	Temporary Restraining Order	July 23, 2019	July 23, 2019 Order/Opinion 398 F.Supp.3d 330
120 4:19-cv-00449	Notice of Appeal	Aug. 6, 2019	Aug. 6, 2019 Pleading / Motion / Brief
119 4:19-cv-00449	Preliminary Injunction	Aug. 6, 2019	Aug. 6, 2019 Order/Opinion
134 (& 134-1 to 134-18), 135 4:19-cv-00449	Plaintiffs' Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction	April 13, 2020	April 13, 2020 Pleading / Motion / Brief
141 4:19-cv-00449	Temporary Restraining Order	April 14, 2020	April 14, 2020 Order/Opinion 454 F.Supp.3d 821
142 4:19-cv-00449	First Supplemental Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	April 14, 2020	April 14, 2020 Complaint
156 4:19-cv-00449 20-01791	Judgment In re: Rutledge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit	April 22, 2020	April 22, 2020 Order/Opinion
154 4:19-cv-00449	Order	April 22, 2020	April 22, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 2079224

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF against All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs (Fee of $400 paid. Receipt Number LIT072757.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 Clearinghouse
2	PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Redacted Document added as a replacement to the Main Document on 6/28/2019 at the request of the filing party and pursuant to instruction from Chambers) (jak) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
3	PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSOLIDATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO GIVE NOTICE OF A RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 RECAP
4	BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' 2 MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Docket text modified on 6/27/2019 to establish linkage) (jak) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
5	BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' 3 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSOLIDATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO GIVE NOTICE OF A RELATED CASE filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Docket text modified on 6/27/2019 to establish linkage) (jak) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
6	PLAINTIFF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS & EASTERN OKLAHOMA'S DISCLOSURE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1 by Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
7	PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES' DISCLOSURE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1 by Little Rock Family Planning Services. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
8	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Meagan Burrows. (Fee of $100 paid. Receipt number LIT072751). Filed by Little Rock Family Planning Services, Thomas Tvedten. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
9	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Leah Godesky. (Fee of $100 paid; receipt number LIT072753). Filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
10	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Kendall Turner. (Fee of $100 paid; receipt number LIT072756). Filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
11	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Taylor Simeone. (Fee of $100 paid; receipt number LIT072754). Filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
12	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Kelly Scavone. (Fee of $100 paid; receipt number LIT072755). Filed by All Plaintiffs. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
13	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Susan Talcott Camp. (Fee of $100 paid; receipt number LIT072752). Filed by Little Rock Family Planning Services, Thomas Tvedten. (jbh) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 26, 2019	June 26, 2019 PACER
14	(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting 3 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to United States District Judge Kristine Baker for consolidation with case 4:15CV00784-KGB. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 6/27/19. (mmb) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 27, 2019	June 27, 2019 PACER
15	(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Pursuant to 14 Order, the Clerk's office has reassigned the case to Judge Kristine G. Baker. (jak) (Entered: 06/27/2019)	June 27, 2019	June 27, 2019 PACER
	Cases associated. Create association to 4:15-cv-00784-KGB per 14 Order. (jak)	June 27, 2019	June 27, 2019 PACER
	NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION 4 Brief in Support, 5 Brief in Support. CORRECTION: The docket text for docket entry 4 was modified to establish linkage to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and or Preliminary Injunction. The docket text for docket entry 5 was modified to establish linkage to 3 Motion for Expedited Consolidation. (jak)	June 27, 2019	June 27, 2019 PACER
	Summons Issued as to All Defendants and returned to counsel. (jbh)	June 27, 2019	June 27, 2019 PACER
16	NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re 2 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. CORRECTION: The original document was submitted in error (un-redacted image file). The correct document was substituted as the main document for docket entry 2 based on the request from the filing party and pursuant to instruction from Chambers. (jak) (Entered: 06/28/2019)	June 28, 2019	June 28, 2019 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas Jacob Bronni on behalf of All Defendants (Bronni, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
18	NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Moore Wagner on behalf of All Defendants (Wagner, Vincent) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
19	MOTION to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs to Respond to this Motion () by All Defendants (Bronni, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
20	MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Maithreyi Ratakonda filed by all Plaintiffs. Fee $100 received. Receipt #LIT072815. (fjg) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
21	ORDER directing plaintiffs to respond to 19 defendants' motion by 5:00 p.m. C.T. on 7/2/2019. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/1/2019. (jbh) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
22	MOTION for Reconsideration re 15 Notice of Reassignment, 14 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, Defendants' Expedited Motion to Reconsider Ex Parte Consolidation Order, MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs to Respond to this Motion () by All Defendants (Bronni, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/01/2019)	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
23	BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 22 Motion for Reconsideration,, Motion to Shorten Time, and Statement Opposing "Related Case" Designation filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Bronni, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/01/2019) 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 View on PACER	July 1, 2019	July 1, 2019 PACER
24	ORDER directing plaintiffs to respond to defendants' expedited 22 motion to reconsider ex parte consolidation order by 4:00 p.m. C.T. on 7/3/2019. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/2/2019. (jbh) (Docket text modified on 7/3/2019 to establish linkage) (jak) (Entered: 07/02/2019)	July 2, 2019	July 2, 2019 RECAP
25	RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs to Respond to this Motion filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email from Attorney Brioni to Court, # 2 Exhibit Email from Attorney Godesky to Attorney Brioni, # 3 Exhibit Email from Attorney Brioni to Godesky)(Brownstein, Bettina) (Entered: 07/02/2019) 1 Exhibit Email from Attorney Brioni to Court View on PACER 2 Exhibit Email from Attorney Godesky to Attorney Brioni View on PACER 3 Exhibit Email from Attorney Brioni to Godesky View on PACER	July 2, 2019	July 2, 2019 PACER
26	MOTION for Discovery Defendants' Motion for Expedited Prehearing Discovery; and Brief in Support, MOTION to Expedite, MOTION to Shorten Time to Respond to This Motion () by All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Bronni, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/02/2019) 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 View on PACER 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 View on PACER 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 View on PACER	July 2, 2019	July 2, 2019 PACER
27	ORDER granting 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20 motions for admission pro hac vice of attorneys Meagan Burrows, Leah Godesky, Kendall Turner, Taylor Simeone, Kelly Scavone, Susan Talcott Camp, and Maithreyi Ratakonda. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/2/2019. (jbh) (Entered: 07/03/2019)	July 2, 2019	July 2, 2019 PACER
	NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re 24 Order. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to establish linkage to 22 Motion as marked on the Order. (jak)	July 3, 2019	July 3, 2019 PACER
28	RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION for Reconsideration re 15 Notice of Reassignment, 14 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, Defendants' Expedited Motion to Reconsider Ex Parte Consolidation Order MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs to Respond to this Motion (Plaintiffs' Response To Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration Of The Consolidation Order And Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request For Related-Case Designation) filed by Stephanie Ho, Little Rock Family Planning Services, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, Thomas Tvedten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Godesky, Leah) (Entered: 07/03/2019) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER	July 3, 2019	July 3, 2019 PACER
29	ORDER denying 22 defendants' expedited motion to reconsider ex parte consolidation order. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/5/2019. (jbh) (Entered: 07/05/2019)	July 5, 2019	July 5, 2019 RECAP
30	ORDER directing plaintiffs to respond to 26 motion by 12:00 p.m. C.T. on 7/8/2019 and taking under advisement defendants' request for expedited discovery. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/5/2019. (jbh) (Entered: 07/05/2019)	July 5, 2019	July 5, 2019 PACER
31	ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING denying 19 defendants' request to extend to 7/22/2019, defendants' time to respond to the complaint and to respond to the request for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction; denying 25 plaintiffs' request that the Court, if it grants defendants' request for an extension, also grant plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order; and granting 19 defendants' request to conduct a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on 7/22/2019. A hearing on the motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction will be conducted on 7/22/2019, at 9:00 a.m. Parties are directed to exchange copies of exhibits and written lists of witnesses by 12:00 p.m. on 7/18/2019. Rebuttal exhibits and written lists of rebuttal witnesses are due by 12:00 p.m. on 7/19/2019. Objections to the Court's consideration of exhibits are due by 8:00 a.m. on 7/22/2019. Defendants' responsive pleading remains due on 7/18/2019. Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is due by 9:00 a.m. C.T. on 7/17/2019. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is due by 9:00 a.m. C.T. 7/19/2019. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/5/2019. (jbh) (Entered: 07/05/2019)	July 5, 2019	July 5, 2019 RECAP
32	NOTICE of Withdrawal re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction by Stephanie Ho, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brandon J. Hill, PhD)(Godesky, Leah)(Docket text mModified on 7/8/2019 to establish linkage) (jak) (Entered: 07/06/2019) 1 Declaration of Brandon J. Hill, PhD View on PACER	July 6, 2019	July 6, 2019 PACER
	NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re 32 Notice. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to establish linkage to 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. (jak)	July 8, 2019	July 8, 2019 PACER
33	RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION for Discovery Defendants' Motion for Expedited Prehearing Discovery; and Brief in Support MOTION to Expedite MOTION to Shorten Time to Respond to This Motion filed by Stephanie Ho, Little Rock Family Planning Services, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, Thomas Tvedten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Godesky, Leah) (Entered: 07/08/2019) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 View on PACER	July 8, 2019	July 8, 2019 PACER
34	ORDER directing the parties to meet and confer regarding any outstanding discovery requests by 12:00 p.m. noon C.T. on Thursday, 7/11/2019; and further directing the parties to file a joint status report by 10:00 a.m. C.T. on Friday, 7/12/2019, describing any outstanding disputes regarding discovery that the parties request the Court resolve. Defendants' 26 motion for expedited prehearing discovery remains under advisement. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/9/2019. (ljb) (Entered: 07/09/2019)	July 9, 2019	July 9, 2019 PACER
35	NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Cantrell on behalf of All Defendants (Cantrell, Michael) (Entered: 07/09/2019)	July 9, 2019	July 9, 2019 PACER

Case: Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge

4:19-cv-00449 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details