Public.Resource.org v. United States Internal Revenue Service

Filing 25

ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Public.Resource.org, Plaintiff(s), 11 12 13 14 13-02789 WHO NOTICE RE: NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER v. United States Internal Revenue Service, Defendant(s). 15 16 The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification and either a Stipulation and 17 [Proposed] Order Selecting an ADR Process or a Notice of Need for ADR Phone 18 Conference as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel 19 shall Meet and Confer forthwith in an attempt to agree on an ADR process for this 20 matter. Thereafter, counsel, on behalf of themselves and each party, promptly shall file 21 an ADR Certification and either 1) a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting 22 ADR Process, or 2) a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference (Civil L.R. 16-8(b), 23 ADR L. R. 3-5(b) Civil L.R. 16-8(c), ADR L. R. 3-5(c), (d)). (These forms are available 24 at www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov.) 25 26 Further, in accordance with ADR L.R. 3-5(e) counsel shall concurrently provide a 27 copy of all documents filed pursuant to this notice directly to the ADR Unit either by fax 28 (415-522-4112), hand delivery (ADR Program, USDC, Northern District of California, Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order 13-02789 WHO -1- 1 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California), or by PDF attachment 2 to an e-mail directed to adr@cand.uscourts.gov. 3 4 5 It is the responsibility of counsel to schedule an ADR Phone Conference, if required, to occur before the Case Management Conference. 6 7 8 9 Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: October 30, 2013 RICHARD W. WIEKING Clerk by: Timothy J. Smagacz 11 12 13 ADR Program Administrator 415-522-4205 Tim_Smagacz@cand.uscourts.gov 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order 13-02789 WHO -2- PROOF OF SERVICE Case Name: Public.Resource.org v. United States Internal Revenue Service Case Number: 13-02789 WHO I declare that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the action. My business address is: ADR Program United States District Court Norther District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue Floor 16 San Francisco, CA 94102 On October 30, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of: Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order [X] electronically, I caused said documents to be transmitted using ECF as specified by General Order No. 45 to the following parties: Thomas R. Burke Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 thomasburke@dwt.com David E Halperin c/o CSRL 1530 P Street NW Washington, DC 20005 davidhalperindc@gmail.com Ronald G. London Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-3401 ronnielondon@dwt.com Christopher Sanders United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 227 Tax Division Washington, DC 20044 christopher.w.sanders@usdoj.gov Yonatan Gelblum U.S. Department of Justice PO Box 227 Tax Division Washington, DC 20044 yonatan.gelblum@usdoj.gov [ ] by Facsimile, I caused said documents to be transmitted to the following parties by fax machine: [ ] by U. S. Mail, I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid in the United States Post Office Mail Box in San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. RICHARD W. WIEKING Clerk by: Timothy J. Smagacz ADR Program Administrator 415-522-4205 Tim_Smagacz@cand.uscourts.gov

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?