Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 50

ORDER re 48 GRANTING Stipulation Continuing Hearing on Defendants' 34 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Initial Case Management Conference. Case Management Conference set for 12/3/2009 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2009 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 10/29/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2009)

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 28

GORDON P. ERSPAMER (CA SBN 83364) [e-mail] TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY (CA SBN 242178) [e-mail] ADRIANO HRVATIN (CA SBN 220909) [e-mail] STACEY M. SPRENKEL (CA SBN 241689) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vietnam Veterans of America; Swords to Plowshares: Veterans Rights Organization; Bruce Price; Franklin D. Rochelle; Larry Meirow; Eric P. Muth; David C. Dufrane; and Wray C. Forrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV 09-0037-CW STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 09-0037-CW sf-2758263

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 28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2 and 7-12, the parties hereby respectfully stipulate, subject to the Court's consideration and approval, as follows: 1. On August 14, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First

Amended Complaint (the "Motion"). (See Docket No. 34.) 2. On September 15, 2009, the Court entered a modified briefing and hearing

schedule in connection with the Motion, pursuant to a stipulation submitted by the parties. (Docket No. 42.) The Court's order also continued the Initial Case Management Conference to November 12, 2009 so that it would coincide with the continued hearing date on the Motion. (Id.) 2.3. Pursuant to the modified briefing schedule, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the

Motion on October 2, 2009 (Docket No. 43), and Defendants filed a reply in support of the Motion on October 23, 2009 (Docket No 47). 3.4. On October 27, 2009, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants conferred regarding a

continuance of the hearing date on Defendants' Motion and the Initial Case Management Conference. Plaintiffs' counsel identified that lead trial counsel for Plaintiffs on this matter, Gordon Erspamer, has a scheduling conflict that will take him out of the country for the majority of the month of November. As lead trial counsel, Mr. Erspamer will argue on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to Defendants' Motion (see Decl. of A. Hrvatin in Support of Stipulation and [Proposed] Order ("Hrvatin Decl.") ¶ 5), and his attendance at the Initial Case Management Conference is mandatory. See Civil L.R. 16-10(a). Defendants' counsel agreed to a continuance of the hearing date on Defendants' Motion as well as the Initial Case Management Conference. (Hrvatin Decl. ¶ 5.) 4.5. Counsel agree to a brief three-week extension as to the deadlines set forth in the

current scheduling order so that the hearing on Defendants' Motion and the Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued from November 12, 2009 to December 3, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. (Id. ¶ 6.) 5.6. This agreed-upon extension of the hearing schedule as to Defendants' Motion and

the Initial Case Management Conference is not submitted for the purpose of delay. The stipulated
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 09-0037-CW sf-2758263

1

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 28

continuance sets these matters on the first law-and-motion date available on the Court's calendar following Mr. Erspamer's return to the country and the Thanksgiving holiday. (Id. ¶ 7.) The stipulated continuance reflects the parties' good-faith and reasonable attempt to accommodate the conflict presented by the schedule of lead trial counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. (Id.) 6.7. The stipulated continuance further promotes judicial efficiency in that it will

provide both parties, through lead trial counsel, the opportunity to present their respective positions on Defendants' Motion to the Court, and will permit lead trial counsel for Plaintiffs to attend the Initial Case Management Conference. In this connection, the parties agree that the brief extension to the schedule will not cause prejudice to either party. (Id. ¶ 8.) IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 28, 2009 GORDON P. ERSPAMER TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY ADRIANO HRVATIN STACEY M. SPRENKEL MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: ___s/ Gordon P. Erspamer________ Gordon P. Erspamer [[e-mail]] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 09-0037-CW sf-2758263

2

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 28

Dated: October 28, 2009

IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON Trial Attorney UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH

By: __s/ Caroline Lewis Wolverton_____ Caroline Lewis Wolverton [[e-mail]] Attorneys for Defendants ORDER On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2009

Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 09-0037-CW sf-2758263

3

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 28

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION I, Gordon P. Erspamer, am the ECF User filing this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Initial Case Management Conference. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Caroline Lewis Wolverton has concurred in this filing. Dated: October 28, 2009 ___/s/ Gordon P. Erspamer__ Gordon P. Erspamer Attorneys for Plaintiffs ______

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 09-0037-CW sf-2758263

4