Electronic Frontier Foundation v. National Security Agency et al

Filing 49

STIPULATION AND ORDER 48 TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/6/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director RODNEY PATTON Senior Counsel JULIA BERMAN Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 305-7919 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: rodney.patton@usdoj.gov 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE ) ) OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL ) INTELLIGENCE, ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No.: 14-cv-03010-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Hon. Richard Seeborg 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Case No.: 14-cv-03010-RS 1 Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6-2, 2 Defendants request and the parties, by and through undersigned counsel, have conferred and 3 hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline from June 6, 2016 to 4 July 6, 2016 for the parties to work out the details of, and finalize, the tentative agreement they 5 have reached to settle Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs. 6 The parties provide the following bases in support of their request: 7 1. On March 17, 2016, the Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment 8 and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. See Order Re: Cross 9 Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) (“Order”); 10 11 2. The Court ordered that the Government submit a proposed final judgment, see Order at 5, which it did on April 7, 2016. See [Proposed] Final Judgment (ECF No. 43-1); 12 3. The Court entered final judgment on April 7, 2016. See Final Judgment (ECF No. 45); 13 4. In that Final Judgment, the Court ordered that, by May 6, 2016, the parties must submit 14 a report stating “whether the parties have reached agreement or whether the plaintiff’s 15 claim” for attorneys’ fees and costs “will be presented to the Court for consideration.” 16 Final Judgment at 1; 17 18 5. On May 6, the parties sought an extension of time until June 6 to allow the thenongoing negotiations to continue; 19 6. On May 10, the Court granted the parties’ request; 20 7. The parties now report that they have reached a tentative agreement to settle Plaintiff’s 21 claim for attorneys’ fees and costs subject to final approval by appropriate officials 22 within the United States Government; 23 8. The parties seek additional time from June 6 to July 6, 2016, for the Government to 24 obtain final approval of the tentative settlement and then, if approved, to draft the 25 settlement agreement; 26 9. The parties will report the status of the case to the Court on or before July 6, 2016. 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Case No.: 14-cv-03010-RS 1 DATED: June 6, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 2 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 3 MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney 4 5 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director 6 /s/ Rodney Patton RODNEY PATTON JULIA A. BERMAN 7 8 11 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 7320 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 305-7919 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 12 Attorneys for Defendants 9 10 13 /s/ Andrew Crocker Andrew Crocker Mark Rumold Nathan Cardozo Jennifer Lynch ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy St. San Francisco, CA 94109 14 15 16 17 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation 19 20 21 22 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) I, Rodney Patton, hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence of Andrew Crocker, counsel for the Plaintiff, Electronic Frontier Foundation, in the filing of this document. 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Rodney Patton RODNEY PATTON Senior Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Case No.: 14-cv-03010-RS 1 2 3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, it is hereby ORDERED that 1. The current deadline of June 6 for the parties to report to the Court about whether they have resolved the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs is extended to July 6, 2016. 4 2. During this time, the Government will seek final approval of the tentative settlement the 5 parties have reached; if approved, the parties will then draft the settlement agreement; 6 7 3. The parties will then report the status of the case to the Court on or before July 6, 2016. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: ___________________ 6/6/16 _______________________________ HON. RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO REPORT TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Case No.: 14-cv-03010-RS

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?