Securus Technologies v. FCC, DC, Order on Mtn. to Stay, Prison Phone Rates, 2014
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
USCA Case #13-1280 Document #1474764 Filed: 01/13/2014 Page 1 of 2 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 13-1280 September Term, 2013 FCC-78FR67956 Filed On: January 13, 2014 Securus Technologies, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents -----------------------------Consolidated with 13-1281, 13-1291, 13-1300 BEFORE: Henderson, Brown,* and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motions for stay, the oppositions thereto, and the replies, it is ORDERED that the motions for stay be granted in part and denied in part. The following provisions of the Federal Communications Commission’s “Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” FCC 13-113 (Sept. 26, 2013), are stayed pending the court’s resolution of these petitions for review: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.6010, 64.6020, and 64.6060. With respect to these provisions, petitioners have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2013). It is * Circuit Judge Brown would grant a stay of the entire rule. USCA Case #13-1280 Document #1474764 Filed: 01/13/2014 Page 2 of 2 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 13-1280 September Term, 2013 FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the parties submit proposed formats for the briefing of these cases within 30 days of the date of this order. The parties are strongly urged to submit a joint proposal and are reminded that the court looks with extreme disfavor on repetitious submissions and will, where appropriate, require a joint brief of aligned parties with total words not to exceed the standard allotment for a single brief. Whether the parties are aligned or have disparate interests, they must provide detailed justifications for any request to file separate briefs or to exceed in the aggregate the standard word allotment. Requests to exceed the standard word allotment must specify the word allotment necessary for each issue. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: Page 2 /s/ Timothy A. Ralls Deputy Clerk/LD