Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02798/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02798-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE—c-07-2798 JW 

 

HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418) 

Henry.Weissman@mto.com 

DANIEL P. COLLINS (SBN 139164) 

Daniel.Collins@mto.com 

JOSEPH S. KLAPACH (SBN 206345) 

Joseph.Klapach@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC. 

STEVEN M. WATT (pro hac vice) 

swatt@aclu.org 

BEN WIZNER (SBN 215724) 

bwizner@aclu.org 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION FOUNDATION 

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 

New York, NY 10014 

Telephone: (212) 549-2500 

Facsimile: (212) 549-2651 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional counsel listed on next page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BINYAM MOHAMED; ABOU ELKASSIM 

BRITEL; AND AHMED AGIZA, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 07-2798 RS 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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 

STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE—c-07-2798 JW 

 

ANN BRICK (SBN 65296) 

abrick@aclunc.org 

ACLU FOUNDATION OF 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Facsimile: (415) 255-1478 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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 

STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE—c-07-2798 JW 

 

 WHEREAS on May 30, 2007, Plaintiffs Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, and 

Ahmed Agiza (“the Initial Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action; 

 WHEREAS, on June 25, 2007, counsel for the Initial Plaintiffs informed counsel for 

Defendant that the Initial Plaintiffs intended to amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a) and to file and serve an amended complaint on or before July 25, 2007; 

 WHEREAS, in light of the forthcoming amended complaint, the parties filed a stipulation 

pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a) to extend the time within which Defendant shall respond to the 

Complaint until August 13, 2007—a date that would correspond to the normal due date under the 

rules for responding to an amended complaint that was filed on July 25, 2007; 

 WHEREAS, as part of the June 26, 2007 stipulation, the parties reserved the right to 

present a further stipulation to the Court, for its approval under Local R. 6-1(b), more fully 

establishing the schedule for a possible motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 in response to the 

forthcoming amended complaint, including a further extension of the due date for responding to 

the forthcoming amended complaint; 

 WHEREAS, after counsel for the Initial Plaintiffs informed counsel for Defendant that the 

Initial Plaintiffs required additional time until August 1, 2007 to complete their amendment of the 

Complaint, an Amended Complaint was filed on August 1, 2007; 

 WHEREAS the Amended Complaint includes claims by two new plaintiffs, Mohamed 

Farag Ahmad Bashmilah and Bisher al-Rawi (together with the Initial Plaintiffs, collectively 

referred to as “Plaintiffs”); 

 WHEREAS, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e), Defendant’s 

response to the Amended Complaint is presently due on Monday, August 20, 2007; 

 WHEREAS, the parties expect that, if Defendant responds to the Amended Complaint by 

filing a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, such a motion would likely raise complex legal issues 

that would require significant substantive briefing addressing, inter alia, the following: whether 

the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims (which are based on alleged U.S. intelligence activities overseas) 

renders this case nonjusticiable; whether Plaintiffs have alleged a norm of international law that is 

actionable under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (“ATS”), in light of the standards 

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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 

STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE—c-07-2798 JW

- 2 - 

established by the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004); and whether 

a corporate entity such as Defendant can be held liable under the ATS for alleged violations of 

international law purportedly committed by agents of, inter alia, the United States, Sweden, 

Morocco, and Egypt; 

 WHEREAS, counsel for the parties expect that they would require additional time beyond 

that provided by the Local Rules to fully and effectively brief such a motion and to prepare papers 

that will best assist the Court in deciding the complex legal issues presented; 

 WHEREAS, the Commentary to Local R. 7-2 states that, “[f]or complex motions, parties 

are encouraged to stipulate to or seek a Court order establishing a longer notice period with 

correspondingly longer periods for response or reply”; 

 WHEREAS, the parties respectfully submit that the proposed schedule set forth below 

will enable them to fully and fairly brief a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; 

 WHEREAS, in light of the complexity of the threshold legal issues raised by the 

Amended Complaint in this case, the parties agree that the Rule 26(f) conference and the formal 

“Initial Case Management Conference” under Local Rule 16-10 (currently set for September 24, 

2007 at 10:00 A.M.) should be deferred until after the Court has issued a final ruling on a motion 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; 

 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs nonetheless request that the Court set a status conference at the 

same date and time (September 24, 2007 at 10:00 A.M.) to address any scheduling or other such 

issues that may be raised by Defendant’s response to the Amended Complaint (which, under the 

schedule set forth below, would then already have been filed on September 19, 2007); 

 WHEREAS Defendant has no objection to Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference, and 

the parties agree to file with the Court a Joint Status Conference Statement on or before 

September 19, 2007 identifying any scheduling or other such issues that may then require the 

Court’s attention; and 

 WHEREAS, the parties have discussed the options for Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(“ADR”) set forth in this Court’s ADR Local Rules, and the parties agree that this case is not 

suited for court-sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution process at this time and that, pending 

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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 

STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE—c-07-2798 JW

- 3 - 

further order of the Court, the provisions of Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 3 should not 

apply to this case; 

 NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their undersigned counsel, hereby 

stipulate as follows: 

 1. Defendant shall file its response to the Amended Complaint on or before 

September 19, 2007. 

 2. Defendant may respond to the Amended Complaint with an answer or by filing a 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. If Defendant responds with a motion, Plaintiffs shall file an 

opposition to such a motion on or before October 24, 2007; Defendant shall file a reply in support 

of such a motion on or before November 21, 2007; and the hearing on the motion shall be 

December 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., or at such date and time thereafter as is convenient for the 

Court. 

 4. The Initial Case Management Conference and Joint Case Management Statement 

provided for by Local R. 16-9 and 16-10, all disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), and the 

Rule 26(f) conference shall be deferred until the Court has issued a final ruling upon any motion 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Pending further order of the Court, the provisions of Local Rule 16-8 

and ADR Local Rule 3 shall not apply to this case. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 5 of 6
 

 The Court adopts the parties' Stipulation except the Court finds that an interim 

Case Management Conference is unnecessary in light of the Defendants' putative 

Motion to Dismiss. The Court will set a conference date in its order regarding 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 

Dated: August 13, 2007 ____________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 6 of 6