Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02041/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02041-2/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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

BRIAN STRETCH 

United States Attorney 

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 

Deputy Branch Director 

RODNEY PATTON 

Senior Counsel 

JULIA BERMAN 

Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

Tel: (202) 305-7919 

Fax: (202) 616-8470 

Email: rodney.patton@usdoj.gov 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 16-cv-02041 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO AMEND PAGE 

LIMITATIONS IN BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

)

Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 31 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

 Pursuant to L. R. 7-12, Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and Defendant 

United States Department of Justice hereby stipulate to the proposed amendment to the page 

limitations in the current briefing schedule for cross-motions for partial summary judgment in this 

case as outlined below and request that the Court order the same. 

1. On August 2, 2016, the Court ordered, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the 

following briefing schedule and page limitations for the parties’ cross-motions for summary 

judgment:

 September 22, 2016 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (25 pages) 

October 13, 2016 Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for 

Summary/Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (50 pages) 

 November 3, 2016 Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply in 

Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (40 pages) 

 November 17, 2016 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (15 

pages) 

 2. Thereafter, on September 20, 2016, Defendant filed an Unopposed Administrative 

Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule to Provide for Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. 

Defendant sought to modify the briefing schedule from one that envisioned the filing of crossmotions for summary judgment to one that envisioned the filing of cross-motions for partial 

summary judgment, because only one of the two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests that 

form the basis of this suit were ready for dispositive briefing, for the reasons set forth in that 

administrative motion. See Defendant’s Unopposed Administrative Motion to Modify Briefing 

Schedule to Provide for Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27. 

3. On September 22, 2016, the Court granted this administrative motion in a Minute 

Entry Order, but it directed that the parties “submit a joint stipulation proposing substantially shorter 

page limits for the briefs related to their cross-motions for partial summary judgment by September 

28, 2016.” 

4. The parties have conferred and have stipulated to the page limits as set forth below; 

the proposed page limits take into account the fact that the FOIA request being addressed in the 

Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 31 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

current schedule is the more legally complex of the two FOIA requests presented in this case: 

September 22, 2016 Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (15 pages) 

October 13, 2016 Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (25 pages) 

November 3, 2016 Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply 

(30 pages) 

 November 17, 2016 Plaintiff’s Reply (20 pages) 

 5. In light of the parties’ stipulation, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter 

the Proposed Order below setting forth this briefing schedule and these page limits. 

Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 31 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

September 28, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

By /s/ Aaron Mackey

 Aaron Mackey 

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 

815 Eddy Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

September 28, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

BRIAN STRETCH 

United States Attorney 

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 

Deputy Branch Director 

By /s/ Rodney Patton

 RODNEY PATTON 

Senior Counsel 

JULIA A. BERMAN 

Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(I)(3) 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I, Rodney Patton, declare that I obtained the concurrence of 

Aaron Mackey, counsel for Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation, in the filing of this document. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct. Executed this 28th day of September, 2016 in Washington, D.C. 

Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 31 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

DATED: September 28, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 By /s/Rodney Patton

RODNEY PATTON 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED, that the parties’ briefing schedule and 

page limits for their cross-motions for partial summary judgment are as follows: 

September 22, 2016 Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (15 pages) 

October 13, 2016 Plaintiff’s Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment/Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (25 pages) 

November 3, 2016 Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion/Reply 

(30 pages) 

 November 17, 2016 Plaintiff’s Reply (20 pages) 

 AND IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ________________, 2016 

 ________________________________ 

 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

 U.S. District Judge 

 

 September 29

Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 31 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 5