Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Filing 190

Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Doc. 190

PEGGY A. WHIPPLE ( MO 54758) [e-mail] Attorney for Missouri Public Service Commission LINDA CONTI (ME 3638) [e-mail] Assistant Attorney General of Maine PATRICK DEALMEIDA [e-mail] Assistant Attorney General of New Jersey TATIANA D. EIRMANN (CT 03398) [e-mail] Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut MICHAEL DONOFRIO (VT 4400) [e-mail] Assistant Attorney General of Vermont [Additional counsel for states and interveners appear on signature page.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS ) LITIGATION, MDL No. 1791 ) ) This Document Relates To: ) ) Robert Clayton, et al. v. AT&T ) Communications of the Southwest, Inc., ) ) et al., (W.D.Mo.) USA v. Steve Gaw, et al., (E.D.Mo.) ) USA v. Kurt Adams, et al., (D. Me.) ) ) USA v. Zulima V. Farber, et al., (D.N.J.) USA v. Anthony J. Palermino, ) et al., (D.Ct.) ) USA v. James Volz, et al., (D.Vt.) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MDL Docket No. 06-1791 VRW Relates to Case Nos. 07-cv-1187-VRW 07-cv-1242-VRW 07-cv-1323-VRW 07-cv-1324-VRW 07-cv-1326-VRW (N.D. Cal. Number not yet assigned to Vermont case) STATE OFFICIALS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR SCHEDULING ORDER [CIVIL L.R. 7-11] Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

Dockets.Justia.com

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, the state officials and interveners in Robert Clayton, et al. v. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc., et al., (N.D. Cal. No. C-07-1187VRW); USA v. Steve Gaw, et al., (N.D. Cal. No. C-07-1242-VRW); USA v. Kurt Adams, et al., (N.D. Cal. No. C-07-1323-VRW); USA v. Zulima V. Farber, et al., (N.D. Cal. No. C-07-1324-VRW); USA v. Anthony J. Palermino, et al., (N.D. Cal. No. C-071326-VRW); and USA v. James Volz, et al., (N.D. Cal. C-07-0000-VRW) ("the State Cases"), hereby make this administrative motion respectfully requesting this Court to issue a scheduling order (1) setting the date for filing reply briefs to dispositive motions already pending in the Connecticut (USA v. Palermino) and Vermont (USA v. Volz) cases, (2) setting the date for supplementation with Ninth Circuit law, as necessary, of already pending dispositive motions and briefs in all six of the above-captioned cases, and (3) setting a date for oral argument on the dispositive motions already pending in all six of the above-captioned cases. Additionally, the pending interveners in the Maine (USA v. Adams), Connecticut (USA v. Palermino) and Vermont (USA v. Volz)cases respectfully request this Court to rule at its earliest convenience on their fully briefed motions to intervene. I. Background The State Cases were transferred to this Court on February 15, 2007 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Well before the date of this transfer order, cross motions for dismissal and for summary judgment had been filed and briefed in each of these cases and, with the exception of reply briefs yet to be filed in the Connecticut and Vermont cases, were ripe for determination.1 All of these cases involve state

All briefing was concluded in the Missouri Western District case on September 27, 2006; briefing was concluded in the Missouri Eastern District case on October 20, 2006; briefing was concluded in the Maine

1

2

officials, acting in their official capacities regarding public utilities subject to their jurisdiction. None of these cases involve private plaintiffs' class actions. Therefore, neither the State Cases nor the private plaintiffs' class action cases currently pending before this Court will be served by coordinated or consolidated discovery. Additionally, the resolution of these six cases will not be served by repetitive briefing. Consequently, the state officials and interveners respectfully submit that these State Cases should proceed expeditiously on a track separate from but concurrent with the track set for the private plaintiffs' class actions. These state officials and interveners have already been in contact with Co-Lead Coordinating Counsel for the private plaintiffs' class action cases, and also with counsel for the Department of Justice, in an attempt to coordinate a proposed scheduling order for the State Cases. These state officials and interveners and the Department of Justice did not reach agreement to permit a stipulation. On the other hand, Co-Lead Coordinating Counsel for the private plaintiffs' class action cases do not object to the following proposed schedule. II. Proposed Schedule March 30, 2007 Parties file reply briefs to dispositive motions already pending in Connecticut and Vermont. All movants file supplemental briefs on dispositive motions already pending in the State Cases. Said briefs shall be limited to addressing legal issues arising from the transfer of the State Cases to the Northern District of California, including choice of law issues and issues relating to relevant Ninth Circuit precedent that were not previously briefed.

case on January 8, 2007; briefing was concluded in the New Jersey case on November 13, 2006; only reply briefs are yet to be filed in the Connecticut case and those were due to be filed on February 26, 2007; and only reply briefs are yet to be filed in the Vermont case and those were due to be filed on March 13, 2007.

3

April 30, 2007

All respondents file responses to the supplemental briefs ordered above. Said responses shall be limited as described above for the supplemental briefs. Oral argument on all dispositive motions already pending in State Cases. (The state officials and interveners respectfully request oral argument on these motions, the date to be set at the Court's convenience.)

May __, 2007 or June__, 2007

III.

Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the state officials and interveners respectfully

request that this Court issue an Order setting forth the above schedule for briefing and oral argument on the dispositive motions already pending in all six of these cases. A Proposed Order is attached hereto for the Court's consideration. DATED: March 9, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Peggy A. Whipple Peggy A. Whipple Missouri Bar No. 54758 [e-mail] Jennifer Heintz Missouri Bar No. 57128 [e-mail] P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for the Missouri Public Service Commission

4

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B I, PEGGY A. WHIPPLE, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, § X.B, that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each of the other signatories listed below. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed on March 9, 2007, at Jefferson City, Missouri. /s/ Peggy A. Whipple Peggy A. Whipple Dated: March 9, 2007.

G. STEVEN ROWE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAINE State House Station 6 Augusta, Maine 04333 By: /s/ Linda J. Conti Linda J. Conti Christopher C. Taub Assistant Attorneys General

ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS James Douglas Cowie, et al. /s/ John M. R. Paterson John M. R. Paterson, Maine Bar #1400 Berstein Shur 100 Middle Street P.O. Box 9729 Portland, ME 04104-5029 /s/ Zachary L. Heiden Zachary L. Heiden MCLU Foundation 402 Cumberland Ave., Ste. 105 Portland, ME 04101

MAINE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 112 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0112 By: /s/ William C. Black Acting Public Advocate Maine Bar # 001011

5

STUART RABNER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY By: /s/ Patrick DeAlmeida Patrick DeAlemeida Assistant Attorney General R. J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625 Tel: [phone]

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENING DEFENDANTS,THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF CONNECTICUT By: /s/ Seth R. Klein SCHATZ NOBEL IZARD, P.C. Seth R. Klein (ct18121) 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT Renee Redman (ct16604), Legal Director 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Anthony J. Palermino, Donald W. Downes, Jack R. Gold berg, John W. Betkoski III, Anne C. George, Commissioners Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT By: /s/ Tatiana D. Eirmann Tatiana D. Eirmann Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct03398 10 Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL Mary J. Healey, Consumer Counsel By: /s/ William L. Vallée Jr. Litigation Attorney Fed. Bar No. ct02042 Ten Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

6

STATE OF VERMONT WILLIAM H. SORRELL ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Michael N. Donofrio Mark J. DiStefano Michael N. Donofrio Assistant Attorneys General 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Tel: [phone] Counsel for Defendants James Volz, David C. Coen, John D. Burke, and David O'Brien

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VERMONT By: /s/ Richard H. Saudek Richard H. Saudek CHENEY, BROCK & SAUDEK, P.C. 159 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lucia Schaefer, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Vermont

7