This HTML version is machine-generated. Always consult the original document.

[Page 1]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 10. A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” so the standard for issuing one is “very high.” RCM Techs., Inc. v. Beacon Hill Staffing Grp., LLC, 502 F. Supp. 2d 70, 72–73 (D.D.C. 2007) (cleaned up). A party seeking a temporary restraining order must make a “clear showing that four factors, taken together, warrant relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in its favor, and accord with the public interest.” See League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).

Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met this high standard. Plaintiff does not meaningfully address any of the four factors, let alone make a “clear showing” that they “warrant relief.” See id. The motion for a temporary restraining order is thus denied. The Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in due course.