American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al v. Drug Enforcement Administration

Filing 56

STIPULATION AND ORDER RR 55 DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/26/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Michael T. Risher (CA SBN 191627)
[e-mail]
Linda Lye (CA SBN 215584)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-255-1478

7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and
SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

16

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; SAN
FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

19

DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION,

20

Defendant.

15

CASE NO.: C 11-01997 RS

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
CLAIMS

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. C 11-01997 RS
JOINT STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

1

STIPULATION

2
3

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §1331. (Doc. 1).

4
5

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2012, the Court granted in part, denied in part the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 48).

6

WHEREAS, pursuant to its summary judgment order, the Court directed

7

Defendant to conduct additional searches, release certain information it had withheld,

8

supplement its search description, and supplement its Vaughn index in various respects.

9
10

WHEREAS, Defendant provided a status report describing its compliance with the
Court’s order on December 30, 2011. (Doc. 52).

11

WHEREAS, thereafter the parties met and conferred and agreed there were no

12

further issues in dispute with respect to Defendant’s production of documents under

13

FOIA.

14

WHEREAS, this Court entered a case management order giving the parties an

15

opportunity to meet and confer on attorneys’ fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E),

16

and requiring the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal on or before April 26, 2012, or

17

appear before this Court on that date to explain why the case should not be dismissed.

18

(Doc. 54).

19
20
21
22
23

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred on attorneys’ fees and costs under
5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and have been unable to arrive at a resolution of the matter.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs will seek attorneys’ fees and costs under 5 U.S.C.
§552(a)(4)(E).
WHEREAS, the parties do not intend this stipulation and [proposed] order of

24

dismissal to affect the analysis of whether Plaintiffs have “substantially prevailed” within

25

the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E).

26
27

THEREFORE, the parties through their respective counsel of record jointly request
that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

1
CASE NO. C 11-01997 RS

JOINT STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

1

51(a)(1)(A)(ii), so that Plaintiffs may file a motion for attorneys’ fees and other litigation

2

costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and Local Rule 54-5.

3
4

SO STIPULATED.
Dated: April 25, 2012

5

By: ___________/s/_____________
Linda Lye

6

8

Michael T. Risher
Linda Lye
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7

10
Dated: April 25, 2012
11
By: __________ /s/______________
Ila Deiss

12
13

Melinda Haag
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Joann M. Swanson
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Ila Deiss
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendant

17
18
19

[PROPOSED] ORDER

20
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with prejudice.
21
Plaintiffs may bring a motion for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs pursuant to 5
22
U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and Local Rule 54-5.
23
24

4/26/12
Dated: ________________

25
26

_________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

27
28
2
CASE NO. C 11-01997 RS

JOINT STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS