Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Filing 347

ORDER by Chief Judge Walker granting in part and denying in part 324 motion to stay. (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2007)

Download PDF
Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al Doc. 347 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN RE: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL CASES except Al-Haramain v Bush, 07-109 / Having considered the parties' motions and oral arguments, the court ORDERS: With respect to Hepting v AT&T, 06-672, the court imposes a limited stay. If plaintiffs propound a limited and targeted set MDL 06-1791 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA of interrogatories (see, for example, the interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs in the Terkel matter, Doc #24, 06-2837MFK), the court will entertain plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay for the purpose of requiring a response. Any such motion shall describe why the discovery will not moot the issues on interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. After consideration of said motion, the court will determine whether to call for opposition to be filed by defendants. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 With respect to all other cases in MDL 1791, the court will enter an order staying proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal in Hepting if the parties stipulate to a stay. If in any case the parties fail to file a stipulation for stay on or before March 8, 2007, defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in such case not later than March 29, 2007. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?