Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 30 Stipulation Regarding Page Limits on Briefs. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,

15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.

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

Case No. 16-cv-02041
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO AMEND PAGE
LIMITATIONS IN BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Pursuant to L. R. 7-12, Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and Defendant

2

United States Department of Justice hereby stipulate to the proposed amendment to the page

3

limitations in the current briefing schedule for cross-motions for partial summary judgment in this

4

case as outlined below and request that the Court order the same.

5

1.

On August 2, 2016, the Court ordered, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the

6

following briefing schedule and page limitations for the parties’ cross-motions for summary

7

judgment:

8

September 22, 2016 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (25 pages)

9

October 13, 2016

10
11

Summary/Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (50 pages)
November 3, 2016

12
13

Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply in
Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (40 pages)

November 17, 2016 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (15

14
15

Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for

pages)
2.

Thereafter, on September 20, 2016, Defendant filed an Unopposed Administrative

16

Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule to Provide for Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.

17

Defendant sought to modify the briefing schedule from one that envisioned the filing of cross-

18

motions for summary judgment to one that envisioned the filing of cross-motions for partial

19

summary judgment, because only one of the two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests that

20

form the basis of this suit were ready for dispositive briefing, for the reasons set forth in that

21

administrative motion. See Defendant’s Unopposed Administrative Motion to Modify Briefing

22

Schedule to Provide for Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27.

23

3.

On September 22, 2016, the Court granted this administrative motion in a Minute

24

Entry Order, but it directed that the parties “submit a joint stipulation proposing substantially shorter

25

page limits for the briefs related to their cross-motions for partial summary judgment by September

26

28, 2016.”

27
28

4.

The parties have conferred and have stipulated to the page limits as set forth below;

the proposed page limits take into account the fact that the FOIA request being addressed in the
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

current schedule is the more legally complex of the two FOIA requests presented in this case:

2

September 22, 2016

Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (15 pages)

3

October 13, 2016

Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary

4

Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (25 pages)

5

November 3, 2016

6

(30 pages)

7
8
9

Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply

November 17, 2016
5.

Plaintiff’s Reply (20 pages)

In light of the parties’ stipulation, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter

the Proposed Order below setting forth this briefing schedule and these page limits.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Respectfully submitted,

September 28, 2016

2

By

3

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
815 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6
7

/s/ Aaron Mackey
Aaron Mackey

Respectfully submitted,

September 28, 2016

8

BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

9

BRIAN STRETCH
United States Attorney

10
11

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Branch Director

12

17

By
/s/ Rodney Patton
RODNEY PATTON
Senior Counsel
JULIA A. BERMAN
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

18

Attorneys for Defendant

13
14
15
16

19
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(I)(3)
20
21
22
23
24

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I, Rodney Patton, declare that I obtained the concurrence of
Aaron Mackey, counsel for Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation, in the filing of this document.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed this 28th day of September, 2016 in Washington, D.C.

25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: September 28, 2016

3
By /s/Rodney Patton
RODNEY PATTON

4
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER

6
7
8
9
10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED, that the parties’ briefing schedule and
page limits for their cross-motions for partial summary judgment are as follows:
September 22, 2016

Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (15 pages)

October 13, 2016

Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary

11
12

Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (25 pages)
November 3, 2016

Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply

13

(30 pages)

14

November 17, 2016

15

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff’s Reply (20 pages)

16
17

DATED: ________________, 2016
September 29

18
19
20

________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
U.S. District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER