UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S SEALED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RULING UPON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [DE 129] AND RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' PROTECTIVE MOTION TO COMPEL [DE 130] Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply to Petitioner Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Opposition to the Respondent's Sealed Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [DE129] and Response in Opposition to Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel [DE 130]. For the following reasons, the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. , files its Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and states: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 26, 2011, the Court issued its omnibus Order on a number of pending motions related to the Petitioners' Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA") Claim (DE99). In that Order, the Court determined that it would allow the Petitioners "the opportunity to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office" in order to allow " limited factual development." ( Id. at 11 (emphasis added).) The Court ordered that the discovery should address only "whether the particular [CVRA] rights asserted here attached and, if so, whether the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights." ( Id. at 10.) On October 3, 2011, Petitioners served on Respondent their First Request for Production to the Government Regarding Information Relevant to Their Pending Action Concern (sic) The Crime Vi