Jane Does 1-10 et al v. University of Washington et al

Filing 125

ORDER directing parties to file supplemental briefing no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 11/28/2017 re: right to privacy. In-court Hearing set for 11/29/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge James L. Robart. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JANE DOES 1-10, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11

CASE NO. C16-1212JLR
ORDER

v.
12
13

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
On November 1, 2017, Plaintiffs Jane Does 1-10 and John Does 1-10 (“Doe
16
Plaintiffs”) filed a notice of supplemental authority concerning Washington Public
17
Employees Association v. Washington State Center for Childhood Deafness & Hearing
18
Loss, 404 P.3d 111, 114 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). (Notice (Dkt. # 124).) This decision
19
involves an exemption to the Public Records Act (“PRA”), RCW ch. 42.56, based on the
20
right to privacy under article 1, section 7 of Washington’s constitution. Wash. Pub.
21
Emps. Ass’n, 404 P.3d at 115-17. The court ORDERS the parties to submit additional
22

ORDER - 1

1

memoranda addressing how this decision does or does not support Doe Plaintiffs’ claim

2

to a right of privacy in the personally identifying information contained in the documents

3

responsive to Defendant David Daleiden’s PRA request. 1 The court DIRECTS the

4

parties to file simultaneous memoranda of no more than seven (7) pages on this issue no

5

later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2017.

6

Finally, the court also SCHEDULES a hearing for Wednesday, November 29,

7

2017, at 10:00 a.m. concerning the issues surrounding the Ninth Circuit’s remand (see

8

USCA Order (Dkt. # 113)) and the parties’ supplemental briefing on remand concerning

9

the preliminary injunction (see Pl. Supp. Br. (Dkt. # 119); UW Resp. (Dkt. # 120); Def.

10

Supp. Br. (Dkt. # 122); Pl. Supp. Reply (Dkt. # 123)).

11

Dated this 20th day of November, 2017.

12
13

A

14

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1

The court is aware of Mr. Daleiden’s argument that Doe Plaintiffs’ “privacy claim is
dead.” (Def. Supp. Br. (Dkt. # 122) at 2 n.2.) There is no need to revisit this issue in any of the
parties’ supplemental memoranda.

ORDER - 2