Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06294/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN RE:

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS

LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL CASES

 /

MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW

ORDER

Pursuant to the court’s practice and procedure order (Doc

#15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The court will hold an initial case management conference

on November 14, 2006, at 2:30 pm. 

(a) To minimize the costs and facilitate a manageable

conference, parties with similar interests may agree

on a single attorney to act on their joint behalf at

the conference. A party will not, by so designating

an attorney to represent its interests on November

14, be precluded from other representation during

the litigation; and attendance at the conference

will not waive objections to jurisdiction, venue or

service. 

//

Case 3:06-cv-06294-VRW Document 2 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

(b) Persons who are not named as parties in this

litigation but may later be joined as parties or are

parties in related litigation pending in other

courts are invited to attend in person or by

counsel.

(2) The case management conference will be held for the

purposes specified in FRCP 16(a), 16(b), 16(c) and 26(f)

and subject to the sanctions prescribed in Rule 16(f). 

Other issues the court intends to address include the

following:

(a) Does the government intend to assert the state

secrets privilege in all of the cases transferred

pursuant to MDL 1791?

(b) Do plaintiffs intend to file consolidated

complaints?

(c) What issues in these cases may be resolved without

implicating the state secrets privilege, if

asserted?

(d) What discovery may proceed and how should it be

coordinated?

(e) What other issues should be addressed to facilitate

the just and timely resolution of this litigation?

(3) Preparations for the conference shall include the

following:

(a) Counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with

the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth and be

prepared at the conference to suggest procedures

that will facilitate the just, speedy and

inexpensive resolution of this litigation.

(b) Before the conference, counsel shall confer and seek

consensus to the extent possible concerning the

items on the agenda, including a proposed discovery

plan under Rule 26(f) and a suggested schedule under

Rule 16(b) for joinder of parties, amendment of

pleadings and any pretrial motions.

(c) Counsel shall submit to the court by November 7,

2006, a brief written statement indicating their

preliminary understanding of the facts involved in

the litigation and the critical factual and legal

issues. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-06294-VRW Document 2 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

(d) Counsel’s statement shall also apprise the court

regarding the status of cases under interlocutory

appeal to the Ninth Circuit and cases in which a

party has opposed transfer for consolidation

pursuant to MDL 1791.

(4) This order shall also apply to related cases later filed

in, removed to or transferred pursuant to MDL 1791.

(5) The court intends to consider appointments of: 

(a) lead counsel or a steering committee for

representation of parties with similar interests;

and 

(b) a technical advisor to assist the court in assessing 

evidence related to national security.

The parties should be prepared to discuss the feasibility

and appropriateness of such appointments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06294-VRW Document 2 Filed 10/16/06 Page 3 of 3