Doe et al v. Harris et al

Filing 79

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time for City of Alameda to respond to Complaint and re: City's desire not to participate in litigation over plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, to proceed anonymously, for partial sealing, and for provisional class certification. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/16/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

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

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

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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
extending time for
City of Alameda to respond to Complaint
and re: City s desire not to participate in
litigation over plaintiffs motions for
preliminary injunction, to proceed
anonymously, for partial sealing, and for
provisional class certification

26
27
28
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME ETC.
CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

1

Plaintiffs and the

wish to extend the time for

2

the City to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint for a period of 90 days

3

from the date of filing this matter, in order to expedite litigation and to avoid the

4

unnecessary expenditure of resources by the City. This case was filed, and the City served,

5

on November 7, 2012. This change will not alter the date of any event or any deadline

6

already fixed by Court order.

7

For these same reasons, Defendant City of Alameda wishes not to be involved in

8

litigation over the following: the TRO or preliminary injunction, since Plaintiffs do not

9
10
11

seek such relief directly against the City; provisional class certification for the purposes of
preliminary injunctive relief; whether Plaintiffs Doe and Roe may proceed anonymously; or
whether the Doe and Roe declarations, or other declarations that may be submitted relating
to provisional class certification or preliminary injunctive relief, may be partially sealed.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED:
1. The time period for Defendant City of Alameda to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is extended to and including February 5, 2013.
2. The City of Alameda does not wish to be heard on, or participate in, matters
relating to
a. the TRO or preliminary injunction, since Plaintiffs do not seek such relief
directly against the City,
b. provisional class certification for the purposes of preliminary injunctive
relief,

21

c. whether Plaintiffs Doe and Roe may proceed anonymously, or

22

d. whether the Doe and Roe declarations, or other declarations relating to

23
24

provisional class certification or preliminary injunctive relief, may be
partially sealed.

25
26
27
28

1
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME ETC.
CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

1

or
2
3
4

modification of any class under Rule 23(d)
certification for any other purpose or in any other context in this action. The City does not
hereby waive or forfeit any such rights, arguments, or defenses, in this regard.

5

This stipulation is without prejudice to any rights, arguments, or defenses the City

6

has or may assert in this action, and the City does not hereby waive or forfeit any such

7

rights, arguments, or defenses.

8
9

As required by Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned filer attests that concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other Signatory.

10
11

November 14, 2012

/S/ Michael T. Risher
Attorney for Plaintiffs

12
13

/S/ Farimah Faiz

14

Attorney for Defendant
15

City of Alameda

16
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
01/16/2013
Dated:____________

NO

helton

Judge T

RT

22

FO

21

R NIA

_______________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
ers COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICTon
E. Hend

20

23
24

A

H

ER

LI

19

UNIT
ED

18

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

17

N

D IS T IC T
R

25
26
27
28

2
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME ETC.
CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-05713-TEH

OF

C