Hegar et al v. Panetta

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 16 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Initial Case Management Conference Set for October 8, 2013 and ADR Deadlines filed by Service Women's Action Network, Colleen Farrell, Jennifer Hunt, Mar y Jennings Hegar, Alexandra Zoe Bedell Case Management Statement due by 3/13/2014. Case Management Conference set for 3/20/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/18/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013)

1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ROSEMARIE T. RING (SBN 220769)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant CHUCK HAGEL

2

STUART F. DELERY
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
ALEX TSE
Chief, Civil Division
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON
District of Columbia Bar No. 496433
Senior Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARGARET CROSBY (SBN 56812)
ELIZABETH O. GILL (SBN 218311)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
20

MARY JENNINGS HEGAR, JENNIFER HUNT,
ALEXANDRA ZOE BEDELL, COLLEEN
FARRELL, and SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION
NETWORK,

21
Plaintiffs,
22
v.
23
CHUCK HAGEL, Secretary of Defense,

CASE NO. C 12-06005 EMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE SET FOR
OCTOBER 8, 2013 AND ADR
DEADLINES

24
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
21640480.2 NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES

1

Plaintiffs Mary Jennings Hegar, Jennifer Hunt, Alexandra Zoe Bedell, Colleen

2

Farrell, and Service Women’s Action Network and Defendant Chuck Hagel, Secretary of

3

Defense (“Secretary”)1 (collectively, “the parties”), by and through their respective counsel,

4

hereby stipulate as follows:

5

1.

On November 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and

6

Injunctive Relief challenging as unconstitutional the 1994 direct ground combat definition

7

and assignment rule, and the Court issued an Order Setting Initial Case Management

8

Conference and ADR Deadlines;

9

2.

On January 24, 2013, the Secretary rescinded the 1994 direct ground combat

10

definition and assignment rule and directed the Military Services to submit plans to him by

11

May 15, 2013 for implementation of this policy change;

12

3.

In light of the above, on January 29, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation with

13

the Court agreeing to meet and confer within three weeks of the May 15, 2013 deadline for

14

the Military Services’ submission of their implementation plans, and to allow the Secretary

15

thirty (30) days after that meet and confer to respond to the Complaint;

16

4.

On February 7, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order with

17

the Court to continue the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines, and on

18

February 8, 2013, the Court entered an order resetting the initial case management

19

conference for July 18, 2013;

20

5.

Consistent with the parties’ agreement to meet and confer within three weeks

21

of the May 15, 2013 deadline for the Military Services’ submission of their implementation

22

plans, the parties held a telephone conference on May 30, 2013. During the conference,

23

undersigned counsel for Defendant conveyed that the Military Services had submitted their

24

implementation plans to the Secretary and that the Department of Defense (“DoD”) was

25

treating the plans as pre-decisional and deliberative. Undersigned counsel for Defendant

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Chuck Hagel,
Secretary of Defense, is automatically substituted for Leon Panetta, former Secretary of
Defense, who is named in the Complaint.
NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
DEADLINES
21640480.2

1

1

further conveyed that, consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013,

2

section 526, H.R. 4310, (“DoD”) planned to report to Congress in July 2013 on the

3

feasibility of developing gender-neutral occupational standards for military occupational

4

specialties currently closed to women. Counsel for Defendant further stated that DoD

5

anticipated that the report would provide some information about the Services’

6

implementation plans.

7

6.

In light of the information provided by counsel for Defendant, the parties

8

filed a stipulation with the Court agreeing to hold a further meet and confer by no later than

9

August 20, 2013 and to allow the Secretary thirty (30) days after that meet and confer to

10

respond to the Complaint.

11

7.

On June 7, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order with the

12

Court to continue the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines, and on June

13

11, 2013, the Court entered an order resetting the initial case management conference for

14

October 3, 2013.

15

8.

DoD made the implementation plans public on June 18, 2013, completed the

16

above-referenced report to Congress in July 2013 and submitted it to Congress on August 2,

17

2013.

18

9.

Consistent with the parties’ agreement to meet and confer no later than

19

August 20, 2013, the parties held a telephone conference on that date. In the following

20

weeks, the parties held several more telephone conferences in which, among other things,

21

the parties discussed the implementation plans DoD had made publicly available, and

22

Plaintiffs’ counsel sought information regarding the date by which Defendant will announce

23

whether certain positions, specialties, units, and schools of interest to Plaintiffs will

24

continue to be closed to women. Plaintiffs’ counsel also informed Defendant that the

25

Plaintiffs intend to file an Amended Complaint.

26

10.

As required by the June 11, 2013 order, the parties held their Rule 26(f)

27

conference and discussed ADR options on August 30, 2013. In light of Plaintiffs’ intention

28

to file an Amended Complaint, the parties agreed that it would most efficient for the Court
NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
DEADLINES
21640480.2

2

1

and for the parties to agree on a schedule for filing the Amended Complaint, responding to

2

the Amended Complaint by Answer or motion, briefing on any motion to be filed, and to

3

request a continuance of the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines.

4
5
6

11.

On September 9, 2013, the Court provided notice to the parties that the initial

case management conference set for October 3, 2013 would be reset for October 8, 2013.
12.

In light of the foregoing, the parties request that the Court continue the

7

scheduling dates established by the June 11, 2013 order, as modified by the September 9,

8

2013 notice, so that those dates occur after Plaintiffs have filed their Amended Complaint

9

and the parties have met and conferred regarding issues raised by that amendment.

10

Specifically, the parties request that the Court adopt the following schedule:

11

11/5/2013

Last day to file Amended Complaint

12

11/15/2013

Last day to meet and confer regarding Amended Complaint

13

12/19/2013

Last day to respond to the Amended Complaint

14

1/31/2014

If response to Amended Complaint is a motion, last day to file

15

opposition

16

2/14/2014

If response to Amended Complaint is a motion, last day to file reply

17

2/20/2014

Last day to: meet and confer re initial disclosures, early settlement,

18

ADR process selection, and discovery plan; file ADR Certification

19

signed by parties and counsel; file either Stipulation to ADR Process

20

or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference

21

3/13/2014

Last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial disclosures or state

22

objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and file Case Management Statement

23

per the Court’s Standing Order re Contents of Joint Case

24

Management Statement

25

3/20/2014

Initial Case Management Conference

26
27
28
NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
DEADLINES
21640480.2

3

1

ACCORDINGLY, the parties respectfully request that the Court adopt their

2

proposed schedule for filing and responding to an Amended Complaint and revise the initial

3

case management conference and ADR deadlines set forth in the June 11, 2013 order, as

4

modified by the September 9, 2013 notice, as set forth above.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6

DATED: September __, 2013

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
STEVEN M. PERRY, ESQ.
ROSEMARIE T. RING, ESQ.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.
ELIZABETH GILL, ESQ.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, WOMEN’S RIGHTS
PROJECT
ARIELA M. MIGDAL, ESQ.
LENORA M. LAPIDUS, ESQ.

16
17
18
19
20

STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
ALEX TSE
Chief, Civil Division
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director

/s/ Caroline Lewis Wolverton
CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorneys for Defendant

/s/ Rosemarie T. Ring
ROSEMARIE T. RING
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Electronic signature authorized
verbally to counsel)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
DEADLINES
21640480.2

4

1
2

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:

3

The initial case management conference and related deadlines are revised as follows:

4

11/5/2013

Last day to file Amended Complaint

5

11/15/2013

Last day to meet and confer regarding Amended Complaint

6

12/19/2013

Last day to respond to the Amended Complaint

7

1/31/2014

If response to Amended Complaint is a motion, last day to file

8

opposition

9

2/14/2014

If response to Amended Complaint is a motion, last day to file reply

10

2/20/2014

Last day to: meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement,

11

ADR process selection, and discovery plan; file ADR Certification

12

signed by parties and counsel; file either Stipulation to ADR Process

13

or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference

14

3/13/2014

Last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial disclosures or state

15

objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and file Case Management Statement

16

per the Court’s Standing Order re Contents of Joint Case

17

Management Statement
Initial Case Management Conference

19

S

RT

24

dwar
Judge E

ER

H

25
26

en

d M. Ch

NO

23

R NIA

22

AP

FO

21

__________________________________
Edward M. Chen
United States District OVED
PR Judge

UNIT
ED

DATED: ____________________, 2013

RT
U
O

9/18

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

3/20/2014

A

18

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

27
28
NO. C 12-06005 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
DEADLINES
21640480.2

5