Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02055/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02055-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,K

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION;

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

and OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02055 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 24, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 21 Filed 08/20/07 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

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a Vaughn index.

The parties shall each have 10 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Defendants do not contest the need for a Vaughn index in this case and the Court intends

to grant Plaintiff’s motion to have one produced expeditiously. What is a viable

deadline for its production – 14 or 28 days?

2. On what authority does Plaintiff rely when it requests that the Court order Defendants to

specify in the index for each withheld document or portion of a document why the

public interest does not favor disclosure?

3. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 21 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2