Nossaman LLP et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Filing 15

Housekeeping Stipulation and ORDER, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/2/2010. (Verduzco, M)

Nossaman LLP et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

B E N JA M IN B. WAGNER U n ite d States Attorney Y O S H IN O R I H. T. HIMEL A s sis ta n t U.S. Attorney 5 0 1 I Street, Suite 10-100 S a c ra m e n to , California 95814 T e le p h o n e : [phone] A tto rn e ys for Defendant U N IT E D STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N O S S A M A N , LLP, P la in tif f , v. U N IT E D STATES DEPARTMENT O F HOMELAND SECURITY, D e f e n d a n t.

1 :1 0 - c v -1 6 2 7 - O W W - S K O H O U S E K E E P I N G STIPULATION A N D ORDER

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N O S S A M A N , LLP, plaintiff, and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF H O M E L A N D SECURITY, defendant, stipulate as follows, subject to the Court's a p p ro v a l as provided for hereon. 1 . In light of paragraphs 2 and 3, below, defendant's motion filed October 20, 2 0 1 0 , and set for hearing November 29, 2010, before Judge Wanger, is resolved and th e re f o re is taken off calendar. 2 . The plaintiffs other than NOSSAMAN, LLP voluntarily dismissed their claims d u rin g the pendency of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. They do not intend to b rin g the claims again. Accordingly, the case caption shall mention only NOSSAMAN, L L P as the plaintiff. 3 . Defendant waives its objections to the sufficiency of service of process.
H O U S E K E E P I N G STIPULATION AND ORDER

Page 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4 . The parties are making efforts to resolve the case voluntarily and wish to c o n s e rv e their and the Court's resources. 5 . To conserve resources, defendant waives any contention that plaintiff must file a n administrative appeal in response to the FOIA final response letter dated October 19, 2 0 1 0 , a copy of which is attached to the filing of October 20, 2010. 6 . The parties recognize that most FOIA cases are decided on a motion for s u m m a ry judgment. Defendant intends to ask for the Court to set a filing date for a d is m is s a l and summary judgment motion at the Scheduling Conference set for January 26, 2 0 1 0 . Because the complaint is lengthy and preparing an answer at this time is in c o n s is te n t with the parties' wish to conserve resources, defendant's obligation to serve a n answer is extended until the seventh day after the Scheduling Conference. 7 . For the Court's information (not action on this stipulation), defendant c o n te m p la te s asking at the Scheduling Conference to reset the answer date to the date to f ile the dismissal and summary judgment motion, as extended by operation of Fed. R. C iv . P. 12(a)(4). Plaintiff contemplates opposing any request made at the Scheduling C o n f e re n c e to reset the answer date to the date to file Defendant's dismissal and summary ju d g m e n t motion because the admissions and denials made in Defendant's answer are re q u ire d for Plaintiff to bring its own dispositive motion in light of Defendant's responses.

D a te d : October 29, 2010 B y:

N O S S A M A N , LLP /s/ Paul S Weiland PAUL S. WEILAND R O B E R T C. HORTON A tto rn e ys for Plaintiffs B E N J A M IN B. WAGNER U n ite d States Attorney B y: /s/ Y Himel YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL A s s is ta n t U. S. Attorney A tto rn e ys for Defendant

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
H O U S E K E E P I N G STIPULATION AND ORDER

D a te d : October 29, 2010

Page 2

1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
H O U S E K E E P I N G STIPULATION AND ORDER

ORDER

Dated: November 2, 2010 emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3