National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress et al

Filing 70

ORDER CONCERNING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO STRIKE AND /OR DISMISS IN EXCESS OF THE PAGE LIMITS INSTANTER re #66 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, #68 MOTION to Strike, and #69 MOTION to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing reset for 10/9/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. The Court will address any issues relating to the scheduling of all motions at the discovery hearing on Friday, if one is requested. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/18/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

10 NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION

(NAF),

11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13

THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL
PROGRESS; BIOMAX PROCUREMENT
15 SERVICES, LLC; DAVID DALEIDEN (aka
“ROBERT SARKIS”); and TROY
16 NEWMAN,
14

17
18
19
20
21

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-3522 (WHO)
Judge William H. Orrick, III
ORDER CONCERNING BRIEFING
AND HEARING SCHEDULE AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO
STRIKE AND /OR DISMISS IN
EXCESS OF THE PAGE LIMITS
INSTANTER

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORD. GRANTING DEF.S’ MOT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ON
MOT. TO STRIKE/DISMISS – 3:15-CV-3522 (WHO)

ORDER

1
2

Defendants The Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, David

3 Daleiden, and Troy Newman (“defendants”) have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike and to
4 dismiss with a sixty page brief in support, which is significantly longer than allowed by the Civil
5 Local Rules. See Dkt. No. 66. Today defendants also filed a separate 25-page motion to dismiss
6 and a 25-page motion to strike, see Dkt. Nos. 68-69, possibly as a precaution in case I denied the
7 motion for excess pages. I have not had an opportunity to review any of those motions in detail.
8

In light of the various legal issues that will be argued by the parties with respect to these

9 motions and the motion for a preliminary injunction, I am inclined to grant defendants’ motion to
10 file their oversize brief, assuming that the motions filed today are duplicative of the earlier motions.
11 If defendants withdraw the separate motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 68-69) by August 19, 2015 at
12 12:00 p.m., their motion to file an oversized brief is granted. Plaintiff may then file a brief of up to
13 60 pages in opposition on or before September 8, 2015. Defendants may file a reply of not more
14 than 20 pages by September 18, 2015.
15

If defendants seek to proceed on all of the motions filed at Dkt. Nos. 66, 68 and 69, then I

16 will enforce the Civil Local Rules with respect to Dkt. No. 66 and deny the motion to file an
17 oversize brief.
18

To allow a comprehensive review of the issues raised and in the interests of efficiency and

19 the administration of justice, hearing on the motion shall occur on October 9, 2015 in conjunction
20 with the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The discovery previously
21 ordered by the Court in connection with the preliminary injunction motion is unaffected by the
filing of defendants’ motions.
22
23
24
25

Defendants have also filed two motions to clarify the Temporary Restraining Order. In the
second, they requested a telephonic hearing. See Dkt. No. 61. They have yet to submit a motion
for an order shortening time. The Court will address any issues relating to the scheduling of all

26
27
28
1

ORDER GRANTING DEF.S’ MOT. TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS IN
MOT. TO STRIKE – 3:15 CV 3522

1 motions at the discovery hearing on Friday, if one is requested.
2
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated: August 18, 2015

_______________________

6

William H. Orrick

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT RELATES TO ANY SUBPOENAS