Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03574-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

ANN BRICK (No. 65296)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 621-2493

Facsimile: (415) 255-8437

abrick@aclunc.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (additional counsel listed below)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

 HALE AND DORR LLP

Mark D. Flanagan (No. 130303)

Elizabeth I. Rogers (No. 226234)

1117 California Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

mark.flanagan@wilmerhale.com

elizabeth.rogers@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Verizon Communications Inc. (additional counsel listed below)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DENNIS RIORDAN; EDWARD 

GERARD DE BONIS; ROBERT S. 

GERSTEIN; ROD GORNEY; ROBERT 

JACOBSON; VINCENT J. 

MANISCALCO; CAROL SOBEL; 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, a nonprofit corporation; 

ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 

a nonprofit corporation; AMERICAN 

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SAN 

DIEGO/IMPERIAL COUNTIES, a 

nonprofit corporation,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

a corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C 06-3574 VRW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RESCHEDULING HEARING 

DATE AND EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-03574-VRW Document 27 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

MARK SCHLOSBERG (No. 209144)

NICOLE A. OZER (No. 228643)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 621-2493

Facsimile: (415) 255-8437

abrick@aclunc.org

mschlosberg@aclunc.org

nozer@aclunc.org

PETER ELIASBERG (No. 189110)

CLARE PASTORE (No. 135933)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1616 Beverly Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90026

Telephone: (213) 977-9500

Facsimile: (213) 250-3919

peliasberg@aclu-sc.org

cpastore@aclu-sc.org

DAVID BLAIR-LOY (No. 229235)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO/IMPERIAL COUNTIES

P.O. Box 87131

San Diego, California 92138

Telephone: (619) 232-2121

Facsimile: (619) 232-0036

dblairloy@aclusandiego.org

LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (No. 115163)

JENNIFER L. KELLY (No. 193416)

SAINA SHAMILOV (No. 215636)

FENWICK & WEST LLP

Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 875-2300

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350

lpulgram@fenwick.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

John A. Rogovin (pro hac vice application pending)

Samir C. Jain (No. 181572)

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006-3642

Telephone: (202) 663-6000

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363

john.rogovin@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Verizon Communications Inc.

Case 3:06-cv-03574-VRW Document 27 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

WHEREAS Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) removed this case from 

the Superior Court of California on June 5, 2006;

WHEREAS on June 15, 2006, Verizon filed a Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings Pending 

a Ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which it originally noticed for a hearing on 

July 21, 2006;

WHEREAS on July 5, 2006, this Court issued an Order relating this case to Campbell et al. 

v. AT&T, 06-3596 VRW, and vacating all matters previously scheduled for hearing and requiring 

them to be renoticed;

WHEREAS on July 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this case to the Superior 

Court of California and noticed that motion for a hearing on August 17, 2006;

WHEREAS on July 6, 2006, Verizon renoticed its Motion for a Stay for a hearing on August 

17, 2006;

WHEREAS the parties agree that it would be more efficient for the parties and the Court if 

the hearing and briefing on Verizon’s Motion for a Stay and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand are 

coordinated, and the parties have agreed on a proposed schedule; 

WHEREAS counsel for Verizon have agreed to accept service on behalf of Verizon; and

WHEREAS the parties agree that Verizon should not be required to answer or otherwise 

respond to the complaint in this case until after the Court rules on Verizon’s Motion for a Stay and 

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiffs and Verizon, through their respective attorneys 

of record, that:

(a) the hearing on Verizon’s Motion for a Stay and on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be 

held on August 17, 2006, 

(b) briefs in opposition to Verizon’s Motion for a Stay and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will 

be due on July 20, 2006;

(d) reply briefs in support of Verizon’s Motion for a Stay and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand 

will be due on August 3, 2006;

Case 3:06-cv-03574-VRW Document 27 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

(e) counsel for Verizon will accept service of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint for Injunctive 

and Declaratory Relief on Verizon’s behalf; and

(f) Verizon need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint filed in this case until 30 

days after the Court either (1) issues a decision on Verizon’s Motion for a Stay that does not stay 

Verizon’s time for responding to the Complaint, or (2) remands this case to the Superior Court of 

California. 

This stipulation shall not preclude Defendants from asserting any defenses, responding to the 

Complaint later than 30 days after the Court rules on Verizon’s Motion for a Stay if otherwise 

permitted, or seeking a further extension of time for responding to the Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 6, 2006

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 

 HALE AND DORR LLP

Mark D. Flanagan

Elizabeth I. Rogers

John A. Rogovin

Samir C. Jain

By /s/ Elizabeth I. Rogers 

Elizabeth I. Rogers

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon Communications Inc.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Ann Brick

Mark Schlosberg

Nicole A. Ozer

By /s/ Ann Brick (with consent)

Ann Brick

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:06-cv-03574-VRW Document 27 Filed 07/11/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B

I, Elizabeth I. Rogers, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, § X.B, that I have

obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory listed herein. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. 

Executed on June 28, 2006, at Palo Alto, California. 

By /s/ Elizabeth I. Rogers 

Elizabeth I. Rogers

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________, 2006

________________________________________

THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

July 11

Case 3:06-cv-03574-VRW Document 27 Filed 07/11/06 Page 5 of 5