National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress et al

Filing 374

ORDER regarding #371 STIPULATION to Extend National Abortion Federation (NAF's) Deadline to Challenge State Subpoenas. NAF may have until JUNE 20, 2016 to either (1) complete its meet-and-confer discussions with the Arizona Attorney General and/or the Louisiana Inspector General or (2) initiate litigation concerning the subpoenas Telephone Conference set for 6/14/2016 03:30 PM before Hon. William H. Orrick. Counsel wishing to participate in the telephone conference should make arrangements to do so with the Courtroom Deputy. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/23/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)

1

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION (NAF),

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS,
BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES LLC,
DAVID DALEIDEN (aka “ROBERT SARKIS”),
and TROY NEWMAN,

16
Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-3522
Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick, III
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND NATIONAL ABORTION
FEDERATION (NAF)’S
DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE
STATE SUBPOENAS
Date Action Filed:
Trial Date:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

July 31, 2015

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-1(a)(5) and 7-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,
National Abortion Federation (“NAF” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Center for Medical
Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, David Daleiden (collectively, “CMP Defendants”)
and Troy Newman (collectively, “Defendants”), file this stipulation to extend NAF’s deadline to
challenge subpoenas issued by the Arizona Attorney General and Louisiana Inspector General to
CMP:
WHEREAS, the Court issued its ruling on NAF’s motion for preliminary injunction on
February 5, 2016 (Dkt. 354);
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend NAF’s deadline to either:
(1) complete its meet-and-confer discussions with the Arizona Attorney General and/or the
Louisiana Inspector General; or (2) initiate litigation concerning the subpoenas to May 30, 2016
(Dkt. 368);
WHEREAS, the parties also stipulated that “no audio or video footage, documents, or any
other material covered by this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, as modified by the Court,
may be produced in response to the subpoenas issued by the Arizona Attorney General and
Louisiana Inspector General unless and until: (1) NAF and representatives of either or both the
Arizona Attorney General and Louisiana Inspector General reach agreement concerning the
scope, terms, and conditions of any production in response to their respective subpoenas. An
agreement with one state does not authorize a response with respect to the other state; or (2) If
NAF initiates litigation in accordance with Paragraph 1 above, disputes concerning the particular
subpoena are resolved by the court in which that litigation is filed.” Id.
WHEREAS, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation on April 19, 2016 (Dkt. 370);
WHEREAS, counsel for NAF represents that it has engaged in meet and confer
discussions directly with representatives of the Arizona Attorney General and Louisiana Inspector
General;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Court and the parties to extend NAF’s
deadline to reach agreement concerning the appropriate scope of a production or initiate litigation

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

1

1
2

from May 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016 or thirty (30) days after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
regarding the preliminary injunction, whichever comes first;

3
4

WHEREAS, extending this deadline will not impact the existing schedule in this
litigation;

5
6

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the
parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

7
8
9
10
11

1. NAF may have until JUNE 20, 2016 or thirty (30) days after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
regarding the preliminary injunction, whichever comes first, to either (1) complete its meet-andconfer discussions with the Arizona Attorney General and/or the Louisiana Inspector General, or
(2) initiate litigation concerning the subpoenas issued by the Arizona Attorney General and/or
Louisiana Inspector General in the appropriate fora.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2. No audio or video footage, documents, or any other material covered by this Court’s
Preliminary Injunction Order may be produced in response to the subpoenas issued by the
Arizona Attorney General and Louisiana Inspector General unless and until: (1) NAF and
representatives of either or both the Arizona Attorney General and Louisiana Inspector General
reach agreement concerning the scope, terms, and conditions of any production in response to
their respective subpoenas. An agreement with one state does not authorize a response with
respect to the other state; or (2) If NAF initiates litigation in accordance with Paragraph 1 above,
and disputes concerning the particular subpoena are resolved by the court in which that litigation
is filed. In the event that NAF does not reach an agreement or initiate litigation with respect to
either or both subpoenas, CMP may respond to the particular subpoena or subpoenas for which
there is no agreement or litigation pending after the applicable deadline as set forth in Paragraph 1
above.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Dated: May 20, 2016

LINDA E. SHOSTAK (CA SBN 64599)
DEREK F. FORAN (CA SBN 224569)
CHRISTOPER L. ROBINSON
(CA SBN 260778)
NICHOLAS S. NAPOLITAN
(CA SBN 251762)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12

By: /s/ Derek F. Foran
DEREK F. FORAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff NATIONAL
ABORTION FEDERATION (NAF)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

3

1

Dated: May 20, 2016

By:

/s/ Steven Wood
Steven Wood

2
STEVEN N.H WOOD (CA SBN 161291)
[e-mail]
BRUCE A. McINTOSH (SBN 175607)
[e-mail]
STEPHEN C. SETO (SBN 175458)
[e-mail]
BERGQUIST WOOD McINTOSH SETO
LLP
1470 Maria Lane, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Fascimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants The Center for
Medical Progress and Biomax Procurement
Services, LLC

10
11

Dated: May 20, 2016

By:

/s/ Erik Zimmerman
Erik Zimmerman

JAY ALAN SEKULOW (DC Bar
496335)
CARLY F. GAMMILL (TN Bar 28217)
[e-mail]
ABIGAIL A. SOUTHERLAND (TN Bar
022608)
[e-mail]
JOSEPH WILLIAMS* (TN Bar 033626)
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW &
JUSTICE
201 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

BRIAN R. CHAVEZ-OCHOA (CA Bar
190289)
[e-mail]
CHAVEZ-OCHOA LAW OFFICES, INC.
4 Jean Street, Suite 4
Valley Springs, CA 95252
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

EDWARD L. WHITE III (MI Bar P62485)
[e-mail]
ERIK M. ZIMMERMAN (MI Bar P78026)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW &
JUSTICE
3001 Plymouth Road, Suite 203
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

21
22
23

Vladimir F. Kozina (CA Bar 95422)
MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

24
25

Attorneys for Defendant,
Troy Newman

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

4

1

Dated: May 20, 2016

By:

/s/ Catherine Short
CATHERINE SHORT

2
3
4
5

CATHERINE W. SHORT (CA Bar 117442)
LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 1313
Ojai, CA 93024-1313
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

6
7
8
9

Thomas Brejcha
Peter Breen
Corrine Konczal
Thomas More Society
19 La Salle St., Ste. 603
Chicago, IL 60603
Email: [e-mail]

10
11

Attorneys for Defendant,
David Daleiden (aka “Robert Sarkis”)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

5

1
2
3

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, Derek F. Foran, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS.

5

In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Derek Foran, Steven Wood, Erik

6

Zimmerman, and Catherine Short concur in this filing.

7

Dated: May 20, 2016

/s/ Derek F. Foran
DEREK F. FORAN

8
9
ORDER

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, NAF may have until JUNE 20, 2016 to either (1)
complete its meet-and-confer discussions with the Arizona Attorney General and/or the Louisiana
Inspector General, or (2) initiate litigation concerning the subpoenas issued by the Arizona
Attorney General and/or Louisiana Inspector General in the appropriate fora.
A Telephonic Conference to discuss the status of the meet-and-confer discussions will be
held on Tuesday June 14, 2016 at 3:30 pm. Plaintiffs shall give notice of this Telephonic
Conference to counsel for Arizona and Louisiana, who may participate in the telephonic
conference if they wish. Counsel wishing to participate in the telephone conference should make
arrangements to do so with the Courtroom Deputy.

20
21
22
23
Honorable William H. Orrick, III
United States District Court

24
25

Dated: May 23, 2016

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND NAF’S DEADLINE TO CHALLENGE STATE SUBPOENAS
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO
sf-3655904

6