Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. et al v. Wikileaks et al

Filing 37

TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/13/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2008)

Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. et al v. Wikileaks et al

Doc. 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD, Plaintiffs, v. WIKILEAKS, et al. Defendants. / TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS

No. C 08-00824 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 10:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. 5. 3. The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: 1. 2. Who is attorney of record for the WikiLeaks Defendants? Have Plaintiffs, by briefly and mistakenly posting their own confidential information on the Court's docket, effectively waived the confidentiality of those documents? (See Docket no. 10.) What is the proper scope of the restraining order? Are Plaintiffs seeking only to enjoin "further" use of the JB Property (i.e., should the order enjoin current use as well as further use)? (See Proposed Order at 5:3.) Are Plaintiffs seeking to enjoin use of all JB Property (as defined in Declaration of Christoph Hiestand, ¶ 5) or only what has been specifically listed in Attachment A to the proposed restraining order? Should the Court grant the application, how do Plaintiffs intend to enforce the Court's order? What is the parties' preferred timeline for briefing on the order to show cause re preliminary injunction? (The Court tentatively sets Friday, February 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. as the hearing date unless the parties stipulate otherwise.) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6.

Dated: February 13, 2008

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2