Almy et al v. United States Department of Defense et al

Filing 80

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF CURRENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND TO CREATE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/9/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

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

M. ANDREW WOODMANSEE (CA SBN 201780)
[e-mail]
STEPHANIE L. FONG (CA SBN 240836)
[e-mail]
KIMBERLY R. GOSLING (CA SBN 247803)
[e-mail]
JESSICA A. ROBERTS (CA SBN 265570)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive
San Diego, California 92130-2040
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 858.720.5125
JOHN M. GOODMAN (DC SBN 383147)
[e-mail]
SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
P. O. Box 65301
Washington, DC 20035-5301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.797.1635
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL D. ALMY

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16

MICHAEL ALMY, JASON KNIGHT, and
ANTHONY LOVERDE,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary
of Defense; DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
FORCE; MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Secretary,
Department of the Air Force; DEPARTMENT
OF THE NAVY; and RAY MABUS,
Secretary, Department of the Navy,

Case No. cv 10-5627 (RS)
STIPULATED JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STAY OF
CURRENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND TO CREATE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
sd-597782

1

In accordance with Northern District of California Local Rules 6-2, 7-11 and 7-12

2

plaintiff Michael Almy and the Government Defendants, by and through their respective counsel,

3

file this stipulated joint administrative motion for a stay of the current briefing schedule and to

4

create a briefing schedule on a motion for a protective order.

5

On August 10, 2012, Defendants in this matter are scheduled to file their Opposition to

6

Plaintiff Almy’s Motion for Summary Judgment and their own Motion to Dismiss, or in the

7

alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants have indicated that they intend to attach

8

documents and quote from documents that Plaintiff believes should be filed under seal.

9

Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s assessment of the confidentiality of these materials and,

10

pursuant to Federal Regulation 29 CFR 50.9, believe that it is appropriate to file them on the

11

public record.

12
13

The parties have met and conferred on this issue and have reached the following
agreement, subject to the Court’s approval:


14
15

that the briefing schedule set out in ECF No. 77 be stayed pending resolution of a
protective order regarding the material at issue;



16
17

that Plaintiff files a Motion for Protective Order no later than August 24, 2012,
which shall be noticed for October 4, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.;



18
19

that Defendant files an Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order no later than
September 7, 2012;



20
21

that Plaintiff files a Reply to the Motion for Protective Order no later than
September 14, 2012.

22

Due to the dispute over the nature of the materials, the briefing on the Protective Order

23

shall be filed under seal pending resolution by the Court. To the extent the Court deems the

24

material at issue not to be “sealable,” the briefing regarding the Motion for Protective Order shall

25

become public five (5) business days after the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Protective Order.

26

///

27

///

28

///
STIPULATED JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
sd-597782

1

1

Also, five (5) business days following the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Protective

2

Order, the briefing for Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion to

3

Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment shall resume pursuant to a revised

4

briefing schedule ordered by the Court.

5
6

Dated: August 9, 2012

7
8
9

M. ANDREW WOODMANSEE
STEPHANIE L. FONG
KIMBERLY R. GOSLING
JESSICA ANNE ROBERTS
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
JOHN M. GOODMAN
SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK

10
11
12

By: /s/ M. Andrew Woodmansee
M. ANDREW WOODMANSEE

13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL ALMY

14
15
16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21

Dated:

8/9/12
United States District Court Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
sd-597782

2