Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_90-cv-03576/USCOURTS-cand-3_90-cv-03576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SETH ROSENFELD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-90-03576 MHP (EDL)

ORDER SETTING MEET AND CONFER

DEADLINE 

On September 11, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Challenge

Regarding Abstract Cards, and ordered the parties to meet and confer in the Court’s jury room to

reach a resolution of this matter. After conferring, the parties reached a resolution and the Court

ordered the parties to file a joint proposed order setting forth the parties’ agreement. 

The parties could not agree on the content of the order. On September 27, 2007, Defendants

filed a proposed order, and Plaintiff filed objections to that proposed order asking for more time to

meet and confer. To the extent that the current dispute centers on Plaintiff’s ability to submit further

FOIA requests for abstract cards, the Court notes that at the September 11, 2007 hearing, Plaintiff’s

counsel unequivocally stated: “There is no intention to seek any more abstracts,” and “[Plaintiff] has

waived his right to seek further abstracts.” See Def.’s Proposed Order, Hearing Tr. at 18:25-19:1;

19:5-6; see also Id. at 19:13-16 (Plaintiff stated that he is bound by his counsel’s statements). 

Accordingly, no later than October 3, 2007, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the

proposed order, and no later than October 10, 2007, the parties shall submit a joint proposed order to

the Court. The Court strongly encourages the parties to agree on the content of the order, but if there

//

//

Case 3:90-cv-03576-EMC Document 122 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

is a good faith dispute, each party shall submit a proposed order with an explanation of the parties’

disagreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:90-cv-03576-EMC Document 122 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2