Case 3:10-cv-00468-FM Document 40 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

RONALD G. MARTIN, JR., §

VIRGINIA JIMENEZ, MAYELA §
ARIZPE, SYLVIA AGUILAR, HON. §
RICK OLIVO, HON. DAVID §
BONILLA, HON. DANIEL §
ROBLEDO, HON. MAX MUNOZ, §
HON. ODELL HOLMES, HON. §
MARIA RAMIREZ, MARK § CAUSE NO. EP-10-CV-0468FM
PUMPHREY and JEAN-CLAUDE §
LINOSSI, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. §
§
THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, §
Defendant. §

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

AND FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Ronald G. Martin, Jr., Virginia Jimenez, Mayela

Arizpe, Sylvia Aguilar, Hon. Rick Olivo, Hon. David Bonilla, Hon. Daniel Robledo,

Hon. Max Munoz, Hon. Odell Holmes, Hon. Maria Ramirez, Mark Pumphrey and Jean-

Claude Linossi, and file this Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and for Leave

to Conduct Discovery, and respectfully show as follows:

Factual Background

1. The Court heard Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction on

January 13, 2011. At that time, Malcolm McGregor, III, along with other individuals and

an organization called “El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values” had filed a Motion to

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time & for Discovery; Martin, et al. v. El Paso; No. EP-10-CV-0468-FM Page 1
 Case 3:10-cv-00468-FM Document 40 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 5

Intervene as a Defendant Under Rule 24 and Memorandum in Support (“Motion to

Intervene”). The Motion to Intervene was pending during the hearing on the preliminary

injunction, and the Court allowed the Intervenors to participate as friends of the Court.

They were all represented by counsel at that hearing.

2. At the hearing on the preliminary injunction, the Court stated that it would

receive no further evidence in the case and would try to make a ruling on the merits of

this case by mid-April of 2011. Subsequently, the Court issued a scheduling order, which

included deadlines for briefing the issue of Intervenors’ standing as party Defendants.

3. The aforementioned deadlines were met by the parties and this Court

granted all Intervenors’ motion to intervene as party defendants.

4. The Motion to Intervene was predicated upon certain factual allegations

with respect to Malcolm McGregor, III. Specifically, Mr. McGregor alleged that he was

a citizen of the state of Texas and a resident of the City of El Paso, Texas. See ECF No.

7, p. 3, para. 8. It also alleged that he “voted in the general election in favor of the

ordinance.” See id., para. 9. Given Mr. McGregor’s affiliation with El Pasoans for

Traditional Family Values—an organization dedicated to high moral standards and

family values—it was reasonable for all parties to rely upon his allegations regarding his

residency.

5. The Court granted the Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene on March 3, 2011.

6. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs learned that Defendant Malcolm McGregor, III

may have made intentional misrepresentations of material fact to this Court. Specifically,

Mr. McGregor may have stated falsehoods when he alleged that he was a citizen of the

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time & for Discovery; Martin, et al. v. El Paso; No. EP-10-CV-0468-FM Page 2
 Case 3:10-cv-00468-FM Document 40 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 5

state of Texas, a citizen of the city of El Paso, Texas, and that he voted in the general

election in support of Municipal Ordinance No. 017456.

7. The basis for the Plaintiffs’ belief that Mr. McGregor may have

misrepresented material facts to this court came to light in a recent report from the local

media that aired on March 15, 2011. Mr. McGregor’s residency was called into question

after he announced that he was running for El Paso City Council. His status as a citizen of

Texas and El Paso is questionable because his El Paso property, located on Mesa Street,

is owned by a corporate entity, known as the McGregor Family Limited Partnership—not

Mr. McGregor individually. Moreover, the El Paso Central Appraisal District has

designated the building on the Mesa Street property as a commercial improvement. A

true and correct copy of the El Paso Central Appraisal District’s website report on that

property is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

8. Also according to El Paso Central Appraisal District, the McGregor Family

Limited Partnership appears to own business personal property, located at an address on

Rio Grande Avenue. The ownership information for that business personal property is

listed at the same Mesa Street address as the commercial building owned by the

McGregor Family Limited Partnership. A true and correct copy of the El Paso Central

Appraisal District’s website report on that business personal property is attached hereto

as Exhibit B.

9. Mr. McGregor appears to own real property in Dona Ana County, New

Mexico, that is designated for residential use. A true and correct copy of Dona Ana

County’s Real Property website report on that property is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time & for Discovery; Martin, et al. v. El Paso; No. EP-10-CV-0468-FM Page 3
 Case 3:10-cv-00468-FM Document 40 Filed 03/18/11 Page 4 of 5

10. The attached documents raise the issue as to Mr. McGregor’s place of

residence. Based upon the foregoing, good causes exists to allow the Plaintiffs to

conduct discovery upon Mr. McGregor as to the factual allegations upon which he based

his Motion to Intervene.

11. Because Mr. McGregor is the secretary of El Pasoans for Traditional

Family Values (see ECF No. 7, p. 3, para. 8), good cause exists to allow the Plaintiffs to

conduct discovery upon a corporate representative of that organization as to its standing

and as to the standing of its individual members.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the

Court enter an order allowing Plaintiffs to conduct discovery upon Malcolm McGregor,

III and a corporate representative of El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values;

specifically, that Plaintiffs be allowed to propound Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents and to take depositions with subpoenae duces tecum. Plaintiffs

further pray that the Court set a time frame for conducting said discovery and filing

dispositive motions, and that the Court postpone its final ruling in the case, pending

completion of the requested discovery and any hearings on dispositive motions.

Plaintiffs further pray for any and all other relief, at law or in equity, to which they may

show themselves justly entitled.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time & for Discovery; Martin, et al. v. El Paso; No. EP-10-CV-0468-FM Page 4
 Case 3:10-cv-00468-FM Document 40 Filed 03/18/11 Page 5 of 5

Respectfully Submitted,

Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, Inc.

747 East San Antonio Avenue, Suite 103
El Paso, Texas 79901
(915) 533-4924 Voice
(915) 533-5117 Facsimile

/s/ Jim K. Jopling

Jim K. Jopling
Texas Bar No. 00796849
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the
following, through the Court’s electronic notice system, via the methods indicated below,
or both, on the 18th day of February, 2011:

David R. Pierce via facsimile, (915) 351-9976

Law Office of David R. Pierce
221 N. Kansas, Suite 504
El Paso, Texas 79901

Mathew D. Staver via facsimile, (407) 875-0770

Liberty Counsel
100 Mountain View Road
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502

Greg Abbott via facsimile, (512) 936-0545

Texas Attorney General
ATTN: Bill Cobb,
Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Litigation
P.O. Box 12548
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 /s/ Jim K. Jopling
Jim K. Jopling

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time & for Discovery; Martin, et al. v. El Paso; No. EP-10-CV-0468-FM Page 5