WOODHULL FREEDOM FOUNDATION et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 6

MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs from Local Rule 7(m) re #5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ERIC KOSZYK, JESSE MALEY, THE INTERNET ARCHIVE, WOODHULL FREEDOM FOUNDATION (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Corn-Revere, Robert)

Case 1:18-cv-01552-RJL Document 6 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WOODHULL FREEDOM FOUNDATION,
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ERIC KOSZYK,
JESSE MALEY, a/k/a ALEX ANDREWS, and
THE INTERNET ARCHIVE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, in his
official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 1:18-cv-1552

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM LOCAL RULE 7(m)
Plaintiffs have this day filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging the constitutionality of the Allow States and
Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-164, 132 Stat. 1253
(2018) (“FOSTA” or “the Act”). Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), prior to filing any nondispositive
motion in a civil action, counsel for Plaintiffs are required to discuss the anticipated motion with
opposing counsel to determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought, and to include
in the motion a statement that the required discussion took place and whether the motion is
opposed. Because the motion for preliminary injunction is being filed simultaneously with the
Complaint commencing this action, there has been no opportunity for an attorney at the Department of Justice to file a notice of appearance on behalf of the government.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be excluded
from the duty to confer set forth in Rule 7(m). Given that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Case 1:18-cv-01552-RJL Document 6 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 3

seeks to forestall enforcement of FOSTA entirely during the pendency of this action, it is highly
likely the government opposes the motion. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be served
concurrently with service of the Complaint such that Defendants will have full, timely notice of
the motion’s filing. Neither any party nor the Court’s procedures would thus be harmed by
forgoing the conferral requirement on this occasion.
A proposed order granting Plaintiffs’ requested exclusion is attached hereto.
DATED: June 28, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert Corn-Revere
ROBERT CORN-REVERE
D.C. Bar No. 375415
RONALD G. LONDON
D.C. Bar No. 456284
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
LAWRENCE G. WALTERS
Florida Bar No.: 0776599
Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Walters Law Group
195 W. Pine Ave.
Longwood, FL 32750-4104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

2

Case 1:18-cv-01552-RJL Document 6 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 3

AARON MACKEY
D.C. Bar No. 1017004
DAVID GREENE
(admitted in California)
Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
CORYNNE MCSHERRY
(admitted in California)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
815 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
DAPHNE KELLER
Cal. Bar No. 226614
Stanford Law School Center
for Internet and Society
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3