Doe et al v. Harris et al

Filing 62

STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding Page Limitation for Plaintiffs' Reply. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/03/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

MICHAEL T. RISHER (SB# 191627)
[e-mail]
LINDA LYE (SB# 215584)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

HANNI FAKHOURY (SB# 252629)
[e-mail]
LEE TIEN (SB# 148216)
[e-mail]
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOHN DOE, et al.
on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and )
)
others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Civil Case No. 3:12-CV-05713-TEH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING PAGE
LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS
REPLY

26
27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Page Limitation for
Plaintiffs Reply
Case No.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

WHEREAS, the proponents of Proposition 35, Chris Kelly and Daphne Phung, have sought
leave to intervene in this action as defendants;
WHEREAS, Defendant Kamala Harris and Proposed Intervenors Kelly and Phung have
each filed separate opposition briefs, see Dkts. 54 & 55;
WHEREAS, the two opposition briefs together total 40 pages, in excess of the 25-page
limit established in Local Rule 7-4(b);
WHEREAS, as required by Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned filer attests that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories;

9

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Defendant Harris, and Proposed Intervenors hereby stipulate that

10

Plaintiffs may file a reply brief of up to 20 pages, notwithstanding the 15-page limit established in

11

Local Rule 7-4(b).

12
13

DATED: November 30, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

14
/s/ Michael T. Risher

15

By:

16

Michael T. Risher
Linda Lye
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
18
19
20
21

Hanni Fakhoury
Lee Tien
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

22
23
24
25
26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves

27
28

1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Page Limitation for
Plaintiffs Reply
Case No.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

and others similarly situated

1

By: /s/ Robert D. Wilson

2

Kamala Harris
Attorney General of California
Peter K. Southworth
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Robert D. Wilson
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box. 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendant Kamala Harris

11

By: /s/ Karen Getman

12

James C. Harrison
Karen Getman
Margaret R. Prinzing
REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL
201 Dolores Ave
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Chris
Kelly & Daphne Phung

18
19

[PROPOSED] ORDER

20

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiffs are hereby granted
leave to file a reply brief of up to 20 pages, notwithstanding the page limitation of Local Rule 74(b).
S DISTRIC
S

TC

NO

RT

26

nderson

e
on E. H

helt
Judge T

H

ER

27

FO

25

LI

24

R NIA

UNIT
ED

_________________________________
Judge Thelton E. Henderson
United States District Judge

23

28

TE
TA

RT
U
O

22

A

21

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Page Limitation for
Plaintiffs Reply
Case No.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

C