USCA Case #15-1063

Document #1557040

Filed: 06/11/2015

Page 1 of 2

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-1063

September Term, 2014
FCC-15-24
Filed On: June 11, 2015

United States Telecom Association,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
-----------------------------Independent Telephone &
Telecommunications Alliance, et al.,
Intervenors
-----------------------------Consolidated with 15-1078, 15-1086,
15-1090, 15-1091, 15-1092, 15-1095,
15-1099, 15-1117, 15-1128, 15-1151,
15-1164

BEFORE:

Griffith, Srinivasan, and Pillard, Circuit Judges
ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for stay or expedition, the responses thereto,
and the reply; and the motion to dismiss Nos. 15-1063 and 15-1078, the response
thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for stay be denied. Petitioners have not 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 (2015). It is

 USCA Case #15-1063

Document #1557040

Filed: 06/11/2015

Page 2 of 2

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-1063

September Term, 2014

FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion for expedition be granted.
The parties are directed to file a proposed briefing format and schedule within 14 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. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be referred to the merits panel
to which these petitions for review are assigned. The parties are directed to address in
their briefs the issues presented in the motion to dismiss rather than incorporate those
arguments by reference.
Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:

Page 2

/s/
Ken Meadows
Deputy Clerk/LD