Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05713/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05713-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-05713-TEH

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

MICHAEL T. RISHER (SB# 191627)

mrisher@aclunc.org 

LINDA LYE (SB# 215584) 

llye@aclunc.org

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 

LEE TIEN (SB# 148216) 

tien@eff.org

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 

815 Eddy Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Telephone: (415) 436-9333 

Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

JOHN DOE, et al.,

on behalf of themselves and others similarly 

situated 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN DOE, et. al, on behalf of themselves and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, 

Defendant,

and

DAPHNE PHUNG; CHRIS KELLY, 

Intervenors. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No. 3:12-CV-05713-TEH

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case Management

Conference: March 21, 2016 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 122 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-05713-TEH

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

1. Introduction and Summary

All parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management Statement (JCMS), as required by this 

Court’s October 26, 2015 order (Dkt. No. 119). This JCMS supplements the JCMS previously filed 

by the parties on March 30, 2015 (Dkt. No. 113) and October 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 117).

This Court’s October 26, 2015 order declared that the provisions of state law at issue in this 

case are unconstitutional but deferred entry of final judgment to allow Intervenors to continue 

pursuing legislation that may resolve this matter. Dkt. 119 at 1. As discussed below, Intervenors are 

still continuing to pursue that legislation and expect that the Assembly Committee on Public Safety 

will take further action on that legislation shortly. 

The parties therefore request that the Court continue this matter until Monday July 11, 2016 

for a further case management conference. 

2. Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed this class-action lawsuit in 2012, challenging the portions of the newly enacted 

Proposition 35 that required all persons who must register under California Penal Code § 290 because 

they have been convicted of sex-related offenses to provide to police their Internet identifiers and the 

names of their Internet service providers. This Court granted a temporary restraining order, halting 

enforcement of the law and then preliminary injunction, prohibiting Defendant from enforcing the 

challenged portions of the initiative. Dkt. 36, 78.

After Defendant and Intervenors appealed, this Court stayed the matter pending resolution of 

the appeal at the request of the parties. Dkt. 100 (2/25/2013). The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s 

decision to grant a preliminary injunction on November 18, 2014, and remanded the case back to this 

Court for further proceedings. Dkt. 105; see Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth 

Circuit issued its mandate on January 2, 2015. Dkt. 107. 

As set forth in the parties’ prior JCMS, Intervenors then requested a stay of the case to pursue 

legislation in the California state legislature to address the Court’s concerns about the portions of 

Proposition 35 at issue here. The Court stayed the proceedings until September 15, 2015, set this 

matter for a case management conference on October 26, 2015, and instructed the parties to file an 

updated case management statement “setting forth the terms of any finalized legislation that may 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 122 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-05713-TEH

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

resolve the issues in this matter, as well as the parties’ positions on whether such legislation does in 

fact resolve the issues and how to proceed to a final disposition of the case.” Dkt. 115 at 2. 

 On June 17, 2015, California Senator Ben Hueso introduced amendments to SB 448 to 

address this Court and the Ninth Circuit’s constitutional concerns regarding Proposition 35. On 

September 1, 2015, the Senate approved SB 448, but the Assembly was unable to vote on SB 448 

before the session closed on September 11, 2015. 

 On, October 26, 2015, by the parties’ stipulation, this Court lifted the stay, declared that the 

provisions of state law at issue are unconstitutional, and deferred entry of final judgment “for a 

further reasonable time to allow Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve this 

matter.” Dkt. 119 at 1-2. That Order also requires the parties to update the Court if it becomes 

apparent that the legislation will or will not be enacted and provides that they will not seek to 

extend this case beyond the 2015-2016 legislative session. Id. at 2.

 Intervenors continue to pursue legislation. SB 448 was approved by the Senate on September 

21, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the Assembly approved amendments to SB 448 proposed by Senator 

Hueso and referred the bill to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. Intervenors anticipate that 

the Committee will schedule a hearing on the measure shortly. 

2. The Parties’ Request

For these reasons, the parties request that the Court continue this matter for four months until 

on or around July 11, 2016, otherwise keeping the provisions of its October 26, 2015 order in effect. 

DATED: March 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Michael T. Risher

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 /s/ Robert D. Wilson

 Attorney for Defendant 

 /s/ Margaret Prinzing 

 Attorney for Interveners 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 122 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-05713-TEH

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 This matter came before the Court for a case management conference on March 21, 2016. 

Intervenors have requested additional time to pursue their legislation that may resolve this matter, 

as discussed in this Court’s October 26, 2015 Order (Dkt. 119).

 Pursuant to stipulation, and for good cause, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1) Entry of final judgment is deferred to allow for a further reasonable time to enable 

Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve this matter.

2) A further case management conference shall be held on July 11, 2016 at 1:30 pm in 

Courtroom 12. The parties shall file an updated joint case management statement no later 

than seven days prior to the case management conference, providing an update as to the 

status of Intervenors’ proposed legislation and setting forth the parties’ views as to the 

implications for disposition of this case. 

3) At any juncture during which this case remains pending and it becomes apparent that 

Intervenors’ efforts to pass legislation are either successful or not successful, the parties 

will provide a joint update to the Court.

4) The parties shall meet and confer prior to seeking entry of final judgment or bringing any 

motion.

5) The parties will not seek to extend this case beyond the current 2015-2016 legislative 

session.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:_________________ _____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON 

03/09/2016

18

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 122 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 4