ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendants' request for preliminary-injunction hearing (Dkt. No. 95). Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion (Dkt. No. 98). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

On July 26, 2019, the Court entered a briefing schedule and noted that, if either party requested a hearing on plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, such a request must be made in writing and set forth good cause by including an overview of the additional evidence that would be presented at the requested hearing (Dkt. No. 88). Defendants assert that an additional hearing is necessary to cross-examine Jason Lindo, Ph.D., Lori Williams, and a representative from Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma ("PPAEO").

The Court denies defendants' request for a hearing (Dkt. No. 95). The matters that defendants wish to raise at a new hearing were known to defendants at the July 22, 2019, hearing. Dr. Lindo, Ms. Williams, who is a representative from Little Rock Family Planning Services, and Janet Cathey, M.D., who is one of the OBGYNs providing abortion care at PPAEO Little Rock, each testified at the July 22, 2019, hearing, and defendants cross examined each of these witnesses. Although the Court limited the amount of time set aside for that July 22, 2019, hearing, neither plaintiffs nor defendants represented to the Court that, within the time allotted, they were unable to present to the Court the testimony, evidence, and argument they wished to present. In fact, after some discussion, the Court granted to defendants time over the initial three hours allotted to permit cross examination of any rebuttal testimony offered by plaintiffs, and defendants did not utilize that time to question plaintiffs' witnesses. The Court examined issues related to these matters in its Order addressing defendants' motion for expedited preliminary-injunction-proceeding discovery (Dkt. No. 94).

To the extent defendants cite the data upon which Dr. Lindo relied as a basis for their request for a hearing, the Court examined issues related to this in its Order addressing defendants' motion to strike latest declaration of Dr. Lindo (Dkt. No. 96).

Under the briefing schedule, all parties have been permitted to file supplemental written evidence, cite additional legal authorities, and make further argument related to these matters (Dkt. No. 88). The Court addressed by prior separate order defendants' request regarding the record in Jegley (Dkt. No. 94), directing the parties to cite this Court to specific portions of that record for this Court's consideration at this stage of the proceedings.

To the extent that any new information has come to light after the hearing on July 22, 2019, the Court concludes that the parties have had the opportunity to address those matters with the Court in supplemental filings and that an additional hearing would not assist the Court in making the factual determinations necessary to decide plaintiffs' pending request for a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the Court denies defendants' request for a hearing (Dkt. No. 95).

So ordered.