The American Civil Liberties Union of North California et al v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Filing 82

ORDER (1) re: the parties' obligations following the November 3, 2011 telephonic settlement conference and (2) DENYING 80 Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 01/03/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et
al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
et al.,

No. C 10-03759 LB
ORDER RE: THE PARTIES’
OBLIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE
NOVEMBER 3, 2011 TELEPHONIC
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

16
17
18

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
After the telephonic settlement conference among the undersigned and the parties to this

19

litigation that took place on November 3, 2011, the court issued a minute order containing the

20

following instructions:

21
22
23
24

Further Telephonic Status Conference held. Production schedule agreed upon.
Parties to submit joint stipulation reflecting new production schedule. Plaintiffs to
provide government with targeted issues about exemptions claimed to date. Parties
to meet and confer to see whether they can establish an informal process for
discussing claimed exemptions during period of rolling disclosures. Parties to
contact courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at [phone] to set further telephonic
settlement case management conference and will submit joint Updated Case
Management Conference statement one week before.

25
26

Amended Minute Order, ECF No. 77.1 No joint stipulation was ever submitted.

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 10-03759 LB

1

Instead, on December 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal the

2

following documents: (1) Plaintiffs’ Statement regarding Document Production Schedule and

3

Further Meet and Confer (“Statement”); (2) Declaration in Support of Administrative Motion to File

4

under Seal (“Declaration”); and (3) [Plaintiffs’ Proposed] Order regarding Document Production

5

Schedule and Further Meet and Confer (“Proposed Order”). Administrative Motion, ECF No. 80.

6

Defendants filed a response. Response, ECF No. 81. Without going into detail (because the

7

discussions concern confidential settlement discussions), it is safe to say that Defendants disagree

8

with some of the representations in Plaintiffs’ Statement and Proposed Order.

regarding a production schedule. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order (and the accompanying Statement and

11

Declaration), to be filed under seal, does not fulfill the court’s instruction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

12
For the Northern District of California

As noted above, the court instructed the parties to file, in the public record, a joint stipulation

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

administrative motion to file under seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs may retrieve the lodged documents,

13

or wait for the Clerk’s Office’s to destroy them, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79–5(e).

14

The court again directs the parties to comply with its November 3, 2011 minute order. To the

15

extent that issues remain unresolved (such as those identified in Plaintiffs’ Statement), the parties are

16

instructed to comply with the procedures for resolving discovery disputes set forth in the

17

undersigned’s Standing Order, except that instead of filing a joint letter on ECF, they may

18

submit a confidential joint letter to the court’s proposed order inbox at

19

[e-mail]. Once the parties have submitted this confidential joint letter, they shall

20

contact courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at [phone] to set a further telephonic settlement

21

conference. The court will try to schedule that conference approximately one week later.

22

This disposes of ECF No. 80.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: January 4, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

C 10-03759 LB

2