First Amendment Coalition v. U.S. Department of Justice

Filing 91

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/22/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12

ORDER SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

10
11

No. C 12-1013 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/
Plaintiff First Amendment Coalition has filed a motion for

13

reconsideration of or relief from the Court’s April 11, 2014 order

14

granting Defendant Department of Justice’s motion for summary

15

judgment and denying Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary

16

judgment.

17

may move “to alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight days

18

of the entry of judgment.

19

motion is appropriate ‘if the district court: (1) is presented

20

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

21

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

22

intervening change in controlling law.’”

23

Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing

24

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

25

1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

26

seek reconsideration of a “final judgment, order, or proceeding”

27

when one of the following is shown: “(1) mistake, inadvertence,

28

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

“A Rule 59(e)

Circuit City Stores,

Rule 60(b) similarly allows a party to

1

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time

2

to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

3

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

4

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

5

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged . . .; or

6

(6) any other reason justifying relief.”

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Here, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration based on the Second

8

Circuit’s April 21, 2014 opinion in New York Times Co. v. United

9

States Department of Justice, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS (2d Cir.).

In

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that opinion, the Second Circuit reversed the Southern District of

11

New York’s order declining to require the disclosure of, inter

12

alia, the Department of Defense memorandum at issue in this suit.

13

Plaintiff further states that the Second Circuit’s opinion

14

“flagged new evidence which the government should have disclosed

15

or brought to this Court’s attention.”

16

argues that Defendant should have disclosed that, on February 4,

17

2013, Defendant produced a version of the related White Paper in

18

response to another organization’s Freedom of Information Act

19

(FOIA) request.

20

government as having “acknowledged” the White Paper, not having

21

officially disclosed it.

22

Specifically, Plaintiff

In this litigation, Defendant characterized the

Having considered Plaintiff’s papers, the Court orders the

23

parties to meet and confer to discuss whether the Second Circuit’s

24

order that the Department of Justice disclose the Department of

25

Defense memorandum moots the instant case.

26

that the time to appeal the Second Circuit’s opinion has not yet

27

passed.

28

deadline has passed.

The Court acknowledges

The parties need not meet and confer until after that
If the parties agree that the Second
2

1

Circuit’s decision moots the case, the parties shall file a notice

2

with the Court and may request that the Court vacate its order.

3

If the parties do not agree or agree that the Second Circuit’s

4

opinion does not moot the instant case, Defendant shall file a

5

response of no more than ten pages by July 14, 2014.

6

shall address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion and any

7

disagreement with respect to the mootness issue.

8

file a reply of no more than five pages within seven days

9

thereafter.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The response

Plaintiff may

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: 5/22/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3