Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03120/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03120-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILEY GILL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03120-RS 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL FILING

The order denying plaintiff’s special motion for leave to conduct discovery invited, but did 

not require, the parties to file a supplemental case management conference statement. Because the 

parties’ prior statements had not set out a proposed schedule for cross-summary judgment 

motions, such a schedule should have been expressly solicited. Accordingly, the Case 

Management Conference is hereby continued to September 3, 2015. No later than Noon on 

September 2, 2015, the parties shall file a further supplemental statement proposing a briefing 

schedule and page limits. The parties are advised that absent exceptional circumstances, crossmotions for summary judgment should be presented in a four brief format—i.e., 1) Party A’s 

opening brief; 2) Party B’s opposition and cross-brief; 3) A’s reply and opposition, and 4) B’s 

reply.

If plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint, the proposed schedule should also address 

that issue. In the joint statement filed on August 21, 2015, plaintiffs suggest that discovery may 

be warranted regarding certain alleged recent events involving one of the plaintiffs. The only 

Case 3:14-cv-03120-RS Document 62 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 14-cv-03120-RS

2

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

Northern District of California

subject area plaintiffs identify as potentially requiring discovery, however, is the issue of standing.

Defendants’ challenge to standing at the pleading stage was rejected. It is contemplated 

that the cross-motions for summary judgment referred to above will be limited to review on the 

administrative record of the propriety of the challenged agency actions. Because defendants have 

not proposed that any discovery go forward in advance of those motions, it is unclear how they 

would advance a challenge to standing that differed from what they presented in the motion to 

dismiss. In the event defendants nevertheless elect to include a further standing challenge as part 

of their motion, plaintiffs should respond based on such evidence and arguments as they presently 

possess, and if they deem it necessary, also seek relief under Rule 56(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03120-RS Document 62 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2