Filed: Aug. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2015
Summary: CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION FOR SHORTENING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO CLARIFY THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III , District Judge . STIPULATION Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff, National Abortion Federation and Defendants Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, and David Daleiden (hereinafter "Defendants"), file this stipulation to shorten the briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion To Clarify Temporary Restraining Order As
Summary: CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION FOR SHORTENING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO CLARIFY THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III , District Judge . STIPULATION Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff, National Abortion Federation and Defendants Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, and David Daleiden (hereinafter "Defendants"), file this stipulation to shorten the briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion To Clarify Temporary Restraining Order As ..
More
CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION FOR SHORTENING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO CLARIFY THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff, National Abortion Federation and Defendants Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, and David Daleiden (hereinafter "Defendants"), file this stipulation to shorten the briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion To Clarify Temporary Restraining Order As It Relates To Nucatola Transcript (Doc. 60-3, Filed Under Seal) and Defendants' Motion To Clarify Temporary Restraining Order As It Relates To Any Subpoenas (Doc. 61) (hereinafter "Motions for Clarification") and state in support whereof as follows:
1. Defendants filed two Motions for Clarification on August 12, 2015 (Doc. 60-3 & 61);
2. On August 14, 2015, this Court entered an Order stating that "a normal briefing schedule was set for this motion," but that the schedule could be modified if parties "met and confer[red]" and submitted a stipulation;
3. Defendants seek to shorten the briefing schedule because a) Plaintiff has stated that it believes Defendants are in violation of the August 3, 2015, Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") due to the continued posting of information on its website, while Defendants dispute this interpretation of the TRO; and b) Defendants have received a subpoena from the State of Arizona, seeking production of documents whose disclosure appears to be forbidden by the TRO, and the subpoena has a return date of August 25, 2015. Clarification is thus needed promptly to determine what documents are and are not covered by the TRO.
4. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred and reached a stipulation on this matter.
5. Only one prior modification has been made to the schedule in this matter. The parties stipulated to a schedule extending the briefing and hearing schedule on NAF's preliminary injunction motion (Doc. 34); this was granted on August 6, 2015 (Doc. 34).
6. Under the normal briefing schedule, Plaintiffs' Responses would be due on August 27, 2015; Defendants' Replies would be due on September 3, 2015; and hearing would be September 17, 2015.
7. Parties have agreed to stipulate to the following briefing schedule instead:
Defendants shall seek an extension on the return date of the Arizona Attorney General's subpoena;
Defendants shall not produce any documents in response to the subpoena until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' Motion for Clarification As It Relates to Any Subpoenas;
Plaintiffs shall file any Responses to the Motions for Clarification by Tuesday, August 25, 2015;
Defendants shall file any Replies to the Motions for Clarification by Friday, August 28, 2015;
The matter shall be set for a hearing on Monday, August 31, 2015.
8. Thus the hearing will be advanced by 14 days as a result of this stipulation.
WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, subject to the approval of the Court that:
Defendants shall seek an extension on the return date of the Arizona Attorney General's subpoena;
Defendants shall not to produce any documents in response to the subpoena until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' Motion for Clarification As It Relates to Any Subpoenas; Plaintiffs shall file any Responses to the Motions for Clarification by Tuesday, August 25, 2015;
Defendants shall file any Replies to the Motions for Clarification by Friday, August 28, 2015;
The matter shall be set for hearing on Monday, August 31, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER
Good cause appearing, the Court hereby modifies the above Stipulation as follows:
1. Defendants shall seek an extension on the return date of the Arizona Attorney General's subpoena;
2. Defendants shall not produce any documents in response to the subpoena until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' Motion for Clarification As It Relates to Any Subpoenas;
3. Plaintiffs shall file any Responses to the Motions for Clarification by Tuesday, August 25, 2015;
4. Defendants shall file any Replies to the Motions for Clarification by Friday, August 28, 2015;
5. The matter shall be set for hearing on Tuesday, September 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th floor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
