| In Elections Case of
Postmaster DeJoy A Preliminary Injunction Is
Granted First Class All the Way
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 21 – In a lawsuit
that alleged that "Trump and
his Postmast General Louis
DeJoy have sent about to
ensure USPS cannot reliably
deliver election mail," a new
exhibit was presented on
September 16,
here.
U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Victor Marrero held a
hearing. Inner City Press live
tweeted it, here:
Judge Marrero: Mr
DeJoy's testimony is not
crucial at this time. I also
deny the request for subpoenas
at this early stage.
AUSA Kochevar:
The 3 US witnesses have been
told to be available, but it
may take a few minutes. Judge
Marrero: OK, call your 1st
witness.
Now the witness
is Robert Cintron, 35 years
with USPS
Q: Has the
postal service observed any
recent impacts from "the
initiative"? Cintron:
Recently, we have bounced back
to where we were pre-COVID.
Q: Why did that
dip in performance happen?
Cintron: An increasing in
package filings. And sick
calls due to COVID.
[With delay due to virtual
hearing procedures, now
Cintron being questions about
USPS Service Data, ECF Docket
45-1
Q: Are you aware
of any recent changes to
postal police protecting mail?
Cintron: No.
Q: Are you
aware that Postmaster LeJoy's
background is in truckers with
business with the postal
service? Cintron: I am. Q: Was
he hands-on? Cintron: He's
knowledgeable. Inner City
Press
Judge Marrero:
I'm going to stop this
questions, you are trying to
elicit opinion. Any re-direct?
No? Please streamline it with
the next witness. It'll
be Angela Curtis.
Cross-examination
of next US witness: So if a
branch manager does not
implement these practices,
there's no consequences,
right? USPS Witness: Sorry,
you're cutting out.
Cross-examiner: Is he cutting
out for anyone else?
Cross-examiner:
Mr. Glass, if in fact you find
out a manager is not
implementing, no consequence,
right? USPS Witness Glass: We
hold
meetings.
After the
proceeding, plaintiffs' lawyer
J. Remy Green filed the
Powerpoint presentation
entitled "PMG's expectation
and plan" submitted during the
hearing, on the
cross-examination of Angela
Curtis.
It begins, The
new PMG [Postmaster General]
is looking at COST... The USPS
will no longer use excessive
cost to get the basic job
done. If you get mail late and
your carriers are gone and you
cannot get the mail out
without Overtime it will
remain for the next day."
On
September 21, Judge Marrero
ruled: "ORDERED that
Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction (Dkt.
No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiffs are directed to
submit a proposed second
amended complaint as discussed
above; and it is further
ORDERED that by not later than
noon on September 25, 2020 the
parties shall settle an Order
providing Plaintiffs
appropriate relief consistent
with this opinion and notify
the Court of such settlement.
In the event the parties fail
to file such notice by that
date the terms of the
following Order shall take
effect without further action
by this Court: 1. The United
States Postal Service (“USPS”)
shall, to the extent that
excess capacity permits, treat
all Election Mail as
First-Class Mail or Priority
Mail Express. 84
a. For purposes of this Order,
the term “Election Mail” shall
refer to any item mailed to or
from authorized election
officials that enables
citizens to participate in the
voting process, including
voter registration materials,
absentee or mail-in ballot
applications, polling place
notifications, blank ballots,
and completed ballots.
2. No later than September 25,
2020, USPS shall provide to
this Court and Plaintiffs a
cost estimate for treating all
Election Mail as First-Class
Mail beginning on October 15,
2020. 3. USPS shall
pre-approve all overtime that
has been or will be requested
for the time period beginning
October 26, 2020 and
continuing through November 6,
2020. 4. No later than October
1, 2020, USPS shall submit to
the Court a list of steps
necessary to restore
First-Class Mail and Marketing
Mail on-time delivery scores
to the highest score each
respective class of mail has
received in 2020, which are
93.88 percent for First-Class
Mail and 93.69 percent for
Marketing Mail, and shall
thereafter make a good faith
effort to fully implement the
listed steps. 5. No later than
September 25, 2020, USPS shall
submit to the Court a list of
all USPS recommended
practices 85
concerning of the treatment of
Election Mail that are not
binding policies. 6. USPS
shall provide this Court and
Plaintiffs with a weekly
update that includes: a. The
same weekly update USPS is
providing Congress; and b.
Separate, unmerged 2-day and
3-5 day weekly service reports
and variance reports; and c. A
summary, not to exceed 10
pages in length, of any and
all data and information
collected regarding USPS’s
handling of Election Mail and
compliance with the USPS
policies regarding Election
Mail, USPS recommended
practices regarding Election
Mail, and the terms of this
Order specifically pertaining
to Election Mail. 7. No
later than September 29, 2020,
USPS shall submit to the Court
and Plaintiffs a proposed
memorandum to all USPS
managerial staff (the
“Guidance Memorandum”). The
proposed Guidance Memorandum
shall in clear terms and with
the aid of examples: a.
Identify and explain all USPS
policy requirements concerning
the treatment of Election
Mail; b. Identify and explain
all USPS recommended practices
concerning the treatment of
Election Mail; 86
c. Clarify that late and extra
trips are not banned, do not
require pre-approval, and will
not result in disciplinary
action; d. Clarify that late
and extra trips that
facilitate the prompt delivery
of Election Mail are
encouraged; e. Explain that,
pursuant to this Court’s
Order, to the extent excess
capacity is available,
Election Mail shall be treated
as First-Class Mail or
Priority Mail Express; f.
Explain that USPS has
pre-approved all overtime that
has been or will be requested
for the time period beginning
October 26, 2020 and
continuing through November 6,
2020; g. Direct managers to
explain to each of their
direct reports the policies
and practices described in the
Guidance Memorandum that are
relevant to each direct
report, taking into account
their individual
responsibilities; h. Provide
contact information for
persons available to answer
questions concerning the
Guidance Memorandum; and i.
Provide contact information
for persons responsible for
tracking and responding to
reports of 87
violations of USPS policies
and recommended practices
concerning the treatment of
Election Mail and direct
personnel to contact this
person in the event of any
such violation. 8. No
later than October 1, 2020,
Plaintiffs shall submit any
comments concerning the
Guidance Memorandum to this
Court. Plaintiffs shall attach
a copy of Defendants’ proposed
Guidance Memorandum containing
any of Plaintiffs’ suggested
edits in track changes. 9.
Within 7 days of the date of
an Order of this Court
approving the Guidance
Memorandum, USPS shall certify
to this Court whether all USPS
managerial staff members have
certified that they have read,
reviewed, and understand the
Guidance Memorandum; to the
extent any managerial staff
member has not yet certified
that they have read, reviewed,
and understand the Guidance
Memorandum, USPS shall
describe each attempt it has
made to contact the relevant
managerial staff member."
The case is Jones
et al v. United States Postal
Service et al., 20-cv-6516
(Marrero)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
